Quote:Hello everybody. I was looking at this kind of shield, but i dont' even know the name of it.
thinking to get some informations about size and construction of this....
Hope someone would responde...
The simplest answer is that there were several types of phalanx shield, ranging from small, shallow ones around 66 cm in diameter to large, very convex ones which could be around 80 cm in diameter. The large majority of the full-size remains and facsimiles which have been found show that between 70 and 75 cm was probably the average size. These could be decorated with the traditional Macedonian designs of starbursts, repeated crescents, raised dots, and concentric circles. Epigraphic and archaeological evidence shows that shields could be made with either leather linings or a wooden core with a leather lining. An example from Pergamon also featured a layer of papyrus papier mache between the bronze facing and the backing. Textual evidence shows that though these shields may have had porpakes for use in close combat, when the phalangite was holding the sarissa with both hands, he did not use it. Some shields may not have had porpakes at all.
Quote:I always believed it was an Illyrian shield, could be wrong though.
This shield type doesn't appear in Illyria until after its first appearance in Macedonian art, so a Macedonian provenance seems secure.
Quote:Its name was pelte. We don't know where the name comes from,but the greeks previously were refering with this name to the round or crescent thracian shield. Phalangites were also called peltasts,like the earlier light armed javelineers with the thracian shield.
The smaller kind were called peltai, but the larger types likely were not. Note, for instance, that in the Amphipolis decree, which is extremely specific in equipment terminology (so machairai were required instead of xiphoi, konoi instead of any other kind of helmet, etc.), the simple term "aspis" was used for the phalangite shield.
Quote:It was round between 60-75 cm in diameter,with probably wooden core like the hoplite aspis. Certainly some times it was covered with thin bronze,as such covers have been found. It was hollow but not as much as the aspis. Between the wood and the bronze face there have been found traces of papyrus for padding.
All the evidence we have points to these shields normally having bronze facings.
Quote:Some of the popular macedonian pelte designs are also present in Ilyrian shiels,that were also sound but must have been smaller and central gripped. The macedonian pelte has a porpax similar to the aspis and an antilabe,although it wouln't have been held when fighting with the sarissa. In the macedonian phalanx,the weight of the pelte would have been carried by a shoulder strap,although most probably the left arm would still have been passed through the porpax.
A full-size bronze Macedonian shield facing has been found in Illyria dating to the end of the fourth century BC, while the shields shown on the Basse-Selce and Vele Ledine belt plaques from Illyria show large shields in use; the figure on the Vele Ledine plaque carrying such a shield is even depicted like he could be carrying his spear two-handed.
Quote:Yes,indeed this valuable silver plate shows two very deep peltes,however the bronze gaces found don't seem to have been that deep,and the sculptures usually show them quite shallow.
The actual bronze facings found in Macedonia are all very similar and date to within about a quarter of a century, which means that they are not exactly indicative of the wide range of forms the phalangite shield took. There are certainly enough depictions of deeply concave shields from representational evidence (Pergamon plaque, Aemilius Paullus relief, numismatic evidence) to attest to their existence.
Quote:I agree it's hard to be sure there weren't deep ones,but i don't think the statement that they were generally shallower than the aspis would be incorrect. In fact i think(though i ought to try it muself to say it with certainty) that in order to both have your arm through the porpax and hold a sarissa, and given that the diemeter is smaller, the pelte couldn't be that much deep. But on the other hand,that plate shows differently.
Which is exactly why Plutarch's statement in relation to Cleomenes III's reform that he taught his men to not use the porpax but to use the ochane (strap) when wielding the sarissa two-handed makes sense. For all we know, the men on the plate may simply be using their telamones and nothing more to carry their shields.
Quote:I would generally agree with this....that our manuals are correct in suggesting that Macedonian peltae should not be too deep. I also think that Connolly and others are right to suggest that the shield was held by porpax and antilabe as well, and that the strap/telamon was more to assist with supporting the weight of the sarissa - this certainly appears to be the experience of those re-enactors ( such as Connolly) who have tried it........
If you think that phalangite shields were always carried with porpax and antilabe, how would you suggest then that the large, deeply dished shields seen on the Aemilius Paullus regiment were carried with the sarissa? Or how Philopoemen's men carried their Argive shields while wielding their sarissae two-handed?
Quote:this also explains why all extant examples ( as opposed to artistic representations ) are of a diameter less than 75 cm - i.e. forearm length - and why they are rimless.
The bronze facing of a Macedonian shield issued under Pharnaces I is 80 cm in diameter. But nonetheless, how do you account for the large size of shields found in various iconographic sources?
Quote:To postulate "large" shields and rims means that an antilabe cannot be used. Having 'mocked up' a shield and a sarissa-like pole, I certainly think that the antilabe was used, and this arrangement is far handier and manageable than either a loose shield hanging from a strap ( useless and gets in the way) or one held by porpax alone...
Why couldn't the "antilabe" (and here that is really not an appropriate term) have been a loop long enough to accommodate the bearer's arm if the shield had a rim?
![[Image: -side-1.gif]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118/kadoglou_gr/-side-1.gif)
