Macedonian Soldier Stele

[MeinPanzer]

By "peltasts", do you mean the elite Hellenistic sarissaphoroi, or the earlier troop type ? I am inclined to agree with Luke Ueda-Sarson that traditional 'peltasts' had disappeared among Greeks, hence Alexander's light infantry were Thracian/Balkan types......he argues that 'mistophoroi' were a hybrid peltast/hoplite of the 'Iphicratean' style rather than the earlier strict division among Greek mercenaries of Xenophon's day into heavy spear and aspis armed 'Hoplites' and light javelin and 'pelte' armed'Peltasts'....

I mean the Hellenistic peltasts, i.e. the elite troops of the Antigonid army who were capable of fighting in ambushes but also of fighting in the Macedonian phalanx.

I have some issues with Luke's conclusions about Hellenistic infantry. It's clear from Asclepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian, at any rate, that peltast - at least in the military manual tradition - was a term which could be applied to anyone who wasn't a hoplite or phalangite, but who also wasn't one of the psiloi. So in that tradition, at least, thureophoroi, thorakitai, and elite peltasts were all "peltasts" (or the latter was at least when not fighting in the phalanx).

[Paullus Scipio]

I was not suggesting that traditional 'peltasts', armed with light shield (pelte) and javelins had disappeared as a type altogether, merely that Greek mercenaries had 'evolved' from distinct 'Hoplites' and 'peltasts' into a single type referred to as 'mistophoroi' ( and I don't think Luke was suggesting that peltasts disappeared either).....and the successors of this type become 'thureophoroi' etc with a change of shield. The traditional javelin armed peltasts still continued as javelin armed skirmishers, found in most armies, often Agrianes, Thracians and other Balkan types and no longer 'Greek' peltasts....

[MeinPanzer]

I was not suggesting that traditional 'peltasts', armed with light shield (pelte) and javelins had disappeared as a type altogether, merely that Greek mercenaries had 'evolved' from distinct 'Hoplites' and 'peltasts' into a single type referred to as 'mistophoroi' ( and I don't think Luke was suggesting that peltasts disappeared either).....and the successors of this type become 'thureophoroi' etc with a change of shield. The traditional javelin armed peltasts still continued as javelin armed skirmishers, found in most armies, often Agrianes, Thracians and other Balkan types and no longer 'Greek' peltasts....

Well then it seems we're in agreement. I agree with Luke insofar as he argues that Iphicrates' peltast became the norm in Greece through the course of the 4th c. BC. However, it should be noted that those peltasts largely became hoplites armed with thureoi in the Hellenistic period, and not strictly thureophoroi.

[Paralus]

By "peltasts", do you mean the elite Hellenistic sarissaphoroi...

Quite a subject just what it was that defined a "peltast" in later Hellenistic armies. Some claim them as Hypaspists and others say lighter troop types. The Amphipolis stele (side B, 1.8-12) records the distinction drawn between the "peltasts" and the "agema":

Of those recruited in the agema the oldest are to be forty-five years of age, unless some of those up to fifty years are judged to be fit to perform service in that unit. Of the peltasts (the oldest are to be) thirty-five.

Plainly the agema here are what, in Alexander III's time, would be called the "Guard" or the hypaspists (possibly the "royal" hypaspists). Yet there are references in Polybius to the "peltasts" as being among the "crack corps" (5.26.8 e.g), though earlier Polybius clearly seperates the "agema" from the "peltasts" as a distinct corps. Later, in the same book, this also seems not the case with the Lagid army of Raphia where, on Ptolemy's left, the 3,000 men of the "Royal Guard" (agema) are clearly noted as such and the "peltasts" are simply that: peltasts (5.82.3) who flank the phalanx.

At 18.33.2 Philip V sends one of these - described as a hypasist - ahead to destroy his papers and Livy (42.51.4-6) has 5,000 caetrati of whom 2,000 are the agema...

Nothing like clarity....

[PMBardunias]

merely that Greek mercenaries had 'evolved' from distinct 'Hoplites' and 'peltasts' into a single type referred to as 'mistophoroi' ( and I don't think Luke was suggesting that peltasts disappeared either).....

I assume you are not saying that mercenary hoplites disappeared.

and the successors of this type become 'thureophoroi' etc with a change of shield.

An excellent point of Luke's. I don't even think the shield changed all that much. I think they simply replaced an oblong single-grip shield, perhaps of thracian derivation, with the celtic shield.

[Fco Matias Bueno]

This sculpture is from Marvinci in the FYROM, and it is dated to the early 2nd c. BC. It is indeed nice to see a well-lit photograph, since in the only photograph that has been published, the top of the relief is not visible. Liampi and Hatzopoulos describe the helmet as being pilos, and I am inclined to agree with them.

Dated to late III early II century BC, is the only published (I believe) stele that show phalangite or peltast.

Another, dating to the late 4th or early 3rd c. BC, was published in the July issue of the American Journal of Archaeology, the stele of Nikolais son of Hadymos:

[Paralus]

I myself am dubious of their claim that during most of Alexander's campaigns the konos/pilos was standard issue. However, based on this overlooked statement from Julius Africanus, they make a convincing case for such a shift later in Alexander's life, but more likely shortly following his death:

Some modifications were made to this military equipment [that of the Greeks, whom he describes before] by the Macedonian epigonoi, who due to the varying character of war, created unique armaments for the battles they waged among themselves and against the barbarians. For instance, they unobstructed the combatant's eyes through the introduction of the Laconian pilos. They say that this was a matter of the soldier king. For Alexander himself ordered the soldiers....

Hatzopoulos and Juhel do indeed make a good case for the pilos being the "standard" state (Hellenistic if not under Alexander) issued helmet for MAcedonian heavy infantry. The stele are dated to the very end of the fourth century or very beginning of the third. The quote from Africanus seems backed by the archaeological evidence - such as it is. Hatzopoulos and Juhel identify this Nikolaos as a file leader or closer: a lower ranking phalanx officer - hence the muscled cuirass. They conclude that:

Generally, the anaysis of the details of the armament strengthens previous conclusions that the heavily armed Macedonian foot soldier was equipped by rank according to specific standards as indicated by the presence of royal arsenals and, more explicitly, by the Amphipolis regulation.

The stele of Nikanor (the cavalryman) of the same dating is rather interesting as well: he is equipped with an "Attic" helmet and, according to the authors, carries an aspis.

[MeinPanzer]

The stele of Nikanor (the cavalryman) of the same dating is rather interesting as well: he is equipped with an "Attic" helmet and, according to the authors, carries an aspis.

I definitely do not think that the curve beside the figure is a shield. They give no reason why it couldn't simply be his arm, and it has a line on it in the right place and at just the right angle as the band on the upper arm of the other sleeve. On top of this, when we do see heavy cavalrymen carrying shields before and after the period that this stele dates to, they are round and large - this would be the only example of a cavalryman carrying a small round shield. Frankly I don't see any way that this man is carrying a shield.

[Paralus]

I definitely do not think that the curve beside the figure is a shield. They give no reason why it couldn't simply be his arm, and it has a line on it in the right place and at just the right angle as the band on the upper arm of the other sleeve.

As I say "according to the authors". The image, in my copy, does not facilitate any ready identification. If it is, in fact, an arm Nikanor seems to be reaching forward and downwards with his left hand and he is rotated slightly to his right. I can't pick out a "band" on the "left arm": rather what appears a crack. If he is depicted in profile - as he appears - there would seem no need for the other arm?

Again, the image is not clear enough on my copy to terribly certain of identifying either a shield or arm.

[MeinPanzer]

As I say "according to the authors". The image, in my copy, does not facilitate any ready identification. If it is, in fact, an arm Nikanor seems to be reaching forward and downwards with his left hand and he is rotated slightly to his right. I can't pick out a "band" on the "left arm": rather what appears a crack. If he is depicted in profile - as he appears - there would seem no need for the other arm?

Again, the image is not clear enough on my copy to terribly certain of identifying either a shield or arm.

It looks very much like his left arm is raised (but bent at the elbow, so his upper arm is angled downward) to touch his mount's neck. In my scan of the article, I can see quite clearly in Fig. 10 a straight line on the arm/shield area along with a faint trace of what looks to be a second, marking out a band like that on his right arm.

[Paralus]

Like always it'd be nice to see the actuality: it might well be clearer. I'm not at all certain it's a shield but am equally uncertain it's an arm.

In fig 10 the rider's right shoulder is behind the helmet and is thus clearly rendered in profile - as seems the rest. The right arm is at the horses' neck and is "pulling" the animal's head onto its chest. One wouold imagine the reigns were there originally (painted on?) and that the left arm - if he is shorteneing the reigns to lower the head onto its chest - would be in a similar position. If the so called "shield" is the left shoulder, it is forward of the face. This would indicate he's rotated to the right some though, again, the pose looks firmly in profile. The angle would seem to take the "arm" up to near his left ear if the beginning of the curve is not the left shoulder.

[MeinPanzer]

Like always it'd be nice to see the actuality: it might well be clearer. I'm not at all certain it's a shield but am equally uncertain it's an arm.

In fig 10 the rider's right shoulder is behind the helmet and is thus clearly rendered in profile - as seems the rest. The right arm is at the horses' neck and is "pulling" the animal's head onto its chest. One wouold imagine the reigns were there originally (painted on?) and that the left arm - if he is shorteneing the reigns to lower the head onto its chest - would be in a similar position. If the so called "shield" is the left shoulder, it is forward of the face. This would indicate he's rotated to the right some though, again, the pose looks firmly in profile. The angle would seem to take the "arm" up to near his left ear if the beginning of the curve is not the left shoulder.

The pose doesn't look firmly in profile to me, and I think a pose rotated somewhat to the right would fit well with the similar pose of his attendant, who is also tilted to the right.

[Paralus]

That's possible though the right arm/shoulder, thorax and chlamys/cloak are resolutely produced in profile He is definitely reigning his mount's chin onto its chest and I'd guess that his left hand is gripping the reigns just as is his right.

Again, I'm not arguing that it's a shield: there isn't enough detail in my fig 10 to make such a claim. I don't think it is his arm though for the reason above.

[MeinPanzer]

That's possible though the right arm/shoulder, thorax and chlamys/cloak are resolutely produced in profile He is definitely reigning his mount's chin onto its chest and I'd guess that his left hand is gripping the reigns just as is his right.

Again, I'm not arguing that it's a shield: there isn't enough detail in my fig 10 to make such a claim. I don't think it is his arm though for the reason above.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I have no problem with seeing that object as his raised left arm. It's obvious from the fairly crude style that the sculptor isn't any master, and so I think that it could just simply be an awkward depiction of the left forearm.

Here is an image of a horseman with his arms similarly oriented; just imagine that his mount's head was farther back and that his forearm was angled downward a little more and you would have a very similar depiction to that shown on this stele.

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/horseman.JPG

And here they are side by side:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... arison.JPG

[Paralus]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I have no problem with seeing that object as his raised left arm. It's obvious from the fairly crude style that the sculptor isn't any master, and so I think that it could just simply be an awkward depiction of the left forearm.

A persual of his resume would be most unlikely to turn up any graduation papers from the school of Phidias nor a work reference from Lysippos.

He's definitely holding a short right reign though (at the base of the horse's neck rather than gripping both behind the back of the neck) and so, if it were Lysippos, I'd still expect the other hand to be doing similar.

You're right: we'll agree to disagree for whilst I'm in no way convinced it's a shield it looks oddly placed for the other arm!