The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paralus]

Nor does the fact that they were 'unused', but in existence 3-4 years mean it took that long to train a competent 'sarissaphoroi'!

We don't know what went into this but clearly it was more than just drilling - hence my comparison of this "Macedonian education" to the agoge. Something along the lines of Heckel's "Macedonian cursus homorum".

...a standard of drill by thousands that surpasses the mere hundreds in the Brigade of Guards Queen's Birthday Trooping of the Colour!

The drill performed at Pelium was indeed that of an army "long in the saddle". That such could be performed in silence and so crisply - including frontage and formation change - speaks to much experience.

[Astiryu1]

Are there any records of the physical requirements during the 3-4 years of training for the Asian soldiers. I know Babylonians love their records so a scribe "may" have been present. It would be nice.

[Paralus]

Are there any records of the physical requirements during the 3-4 years of training for the Asian soldiers. I know Babylonians love their records so a scribe "may" have been present. It would be nice.

Not to my knowledge. Alexander had these "youths" set aside for training in what might be called "the Macedonian education". Whilst this is not documented (the Babylonians seemed far more intersted in astronomical observations and the rise and fall of commodity prices - what's changed in over 2,300 years!) in the source material the fact that these were "youths" and that it took some 3-5 years (depending on which source) to complete the training indicates that it was something akin to, if not the same as, Heckel's "Macedonian cursous honorum". In other word, the boys - like the paides basilikoi - were put through something similar to that which the Macedonian aristocratic youth went through.

By the time we get to Susa in 324 we have 30,000 such having been trained throughout the "upper" satrapies and ready to be enrolled into the army. This, as it transpired, included groups able to be included into the Companion cavalry and hypaspists / argyraspids which occasioned the "rebellion" at Opis. In the years following Alexander's death the sources are consistent in noting that the various satraps and notables (Antigonus, Alketas, Eumenes, Peucestas, et al) all had their agemata of horse as well as paides. Both Antigonus and Eumenes deployed not only their agemata at Paraetekene but also troops of these boys (50 each) as advance guards: Antigonus three and Eumenes two. It can hardly be that these are "slaves" pressed into service as has been argued. Slaves are the last resort and 100, in an army of 35,000 plus, are hardly of great benefit. Further, 150 extra horse added to Antigonus; 9,000 plus cavalry is not going to alter the outcome in any appreciable fashion. It is far more likely that these are the paides in training who will become the paides basilikoi of the new kingdoms.

[MeinPanzer]

While I don't wish to wade into the fuller debate, I would like to offer a few comments on the discussion...

Given the foregoing viewpoint, it then doesn't seem all that strange that some Greek armies didn't take up the Macedonian way of war until more than a century after it's introduciton in 358. Even then, it should be noted that adoption of the Macedonian manner of fighting doesn't necessarily mean universal use of the sarissa. Indeed, at the time the Achaeans acquired this military style they had long abandoned the hoplite, yet they now set about equipping some of their men with a large shield (aspis, suggesting a return to hoplites) and others as phalangites with sarissai, indicating that both warrior types were considered necessary to make the system work. In contrast, the Spartans, who had never abandoned the hoplite, needed only to add sarissai to complete a transition to Macedonian warfare.

A controversial claim ! The throwing spear/longche had been in use all along, but it was the success of Aetolian ‘peltast’ types thus armed, against the Gauls in 279 BC, in contrast to the lack of success of ‘Hoplites’, that prompted the southern Greeks to switch to ‘Thureophoroi’ – adopting the oblong ‘thureos’ from the Gauls.

Whoah ! That's quite a hypothesis. Don’t be confused here! Philopoemon’s reforms (late 3 C) were undoubtedly to re-arm “in the Macedonian style”. This is not a reference to a ‘mixed’ phalanx, but ‘sarissaphoroi’.
The confusion arises from the use of the word ‘aspis’, which, since the virtual disappearance of the specific ‘Argive Aspis’, had come to mean a generic ‘circular shield’ only. ( previously the ‘Argive aspis’ had been the only kind of ‘Aspis’ in use, hence could be synonymous with it). The ‘Macedonian shield’ – circular, wooden, 60-70 cm in diameter, often metal faced could be equally accurately described as a ‘pelta’ or ‘aspis’.It should be noted that it is a physical impossibility to use the ‘Argive Aspis’ ( 80-90 cm diameter) with the sarissa.

A few points:

Firstly, by the time the Greek states (Achaea, Boeotia, Sparta) adopted the Macedonian phalanx, they had not "long abandoned" the hoplite, nor was it the success of peltast-like troops that led to the adoption of the thureos throughout Greece. Both the account of Philopoemen's reforms and the military catalogues of Boeotia make clear that the thureos was adopted by hoplites, and that the thureophoroi of whom we hear in Greece in the mid third century BC were in fact hoplites fighting in phalanx formation but carrying thureoi. As a result, they pretty much had the worst of both worlds, with the light equipment of thureophoroi but the static and unwieldy formation of the hoplite phalanx.

Secondly, the Achaeans did adopt the Argive aspis, and not the Macedonian shield (Pausanias, 8.50.1). However, this does not indicate that they re-armed their hoplites with such shields. It simply means that the phalangites used Argive aspides. Contra Paul, it would not have been physically impossible to carry the Argive shield while bearing the sarissa. We know that when Cleomenes III equipped his men as phalangites, he issued shields to them and taught them "to wield the sarissa with both hands and to bear the shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax" (Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, 9.2). Once it is accepted that the phalangite did not have to employ a porpax to carry his shield, the offset rim and size of the hoplite shield are no longer impediments to wielding the sarissa.

Again, the evidence is fairly conclusive that ALL the Spartan Infantry became ‘sarissaphoroi’, not a mix of ‘Hoplites’ and’ Sarissaphoroi’. The evidence strongly suggests that ‘Hoplites’ armed with ‘dory/argive aspis’ no longer existed in 222BC…

And thirdly, there is no reason to doubt that the hoplite armed with doru and Argive shield existed well into the Hellenistic period. The classic hoplite remained in use among small independent poleis: an example of such troops is the the third century BC citizen soldiers of Teos armed with aspis, doru, machaira, and helmet (Robert and Robert, "Une Inscription grecque de Teos en Ionie. L'Union de Teos et de Kyrbissos," l. 33-4), and their continued use is demonstrated by several iconographic sources which continue to depict the Argive shield alongside contemporary equipment.

[Paralus]

Secondly, the Achaeans did adopt the Argive aspis, and not the Macedonian shield (Pausanias, 8.50.1). However, this does not indicate that they re-armed their hoplites with such shields. It simply means that the phalangites used Argive aspides. Contra Paul, it would not have been physically impossible to carry the Argive shield while bearing the sarissa. We know that when Cleomenes III equipped his men as phalangites, he issued shields to them and taught them "to wield the sarissa with both hands and to bear the shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax" (Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, 9.2). Once it is accepted that the phalangite did not have to employ a porpax to carry his shield, the offset rim and size of the hoplite shield are no longer impediments to wielding the sarissa.

Indeed. Those, though, sticking to the old view, would still argue the point. In his impecunious state, one hardly imagines Kleomenes commissioning the construction of purpose-designed shields as well as sarisae. Baldrics added to existing shields though... now there's a notion - particularly for those helots who'd bought their right to die at Sellasia.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:-

Firstly, by the time the Greek states (Achaea, Boeotia, Sparta) adopted the Macedonian phalanx, they had not "long abandoned" the hoplite, nor was it the success of peltast-like troops that led to the adoption of the thureos throughout Greece. Both the account of Philopoemen's reforms and the military catalogues of Boeotia make clear that the thureos was adopted by hoplites, and that the thureophoroi of whom we hear in Greece in the mid third century BC were in fact hoplites fighting in phalanx formation but carrying thureoi. As a result, they pretty much had the worst of both worlds, with the light equipment of thureophoroi but the static and unwieldy formation of the hoplite phalanx.

Where did you get "long abandoned" from? I don't think I said this....most of the city states seem to have changed one by one from hoplite arms to thureophoroi sometime after the Gallic invasions, c. 275 BC onward.....
It was the Aetolians success with missile armed peltasts/psiloi, and the relative failure of hoplites against the dreaded Gauls that likely caused a switch in the armament of citizen Militias from hoplite to a peltast-type 'intermediate' infantry, supposedly able both to fight as missile troops (requiring open order) and to be able to close up for hand-to-hand combat, though in reality they seem only to have fought hand-to-hand with their own kind, generally,and at the same time to adopt the Gallic-style thureos/oval shield.

Plutarch makes it clear that the Achaean thureophoroi were not good at close combat:
"For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed, but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage.....and since they employed a solid phalanx without either levelled line of spears or wall of interlocking shields such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered."
...so I would agree with you that they seem to have had the worst of both worlds.

Secondly, the Achaeans did adopt the Argive aspis, and not the Macedonian shield (Pausanias, 8.50.1). However, this does not indicate that they re-armed their hoplites with such shields. It simply means that the phalangites used Argive aspides. Contra Paul, it would not have been physically impossible to carry the Argive shield while bearing the sarissa. We know that when Cleomenes III equipped his men as phalangites, he issued shields to them and taught them "to wield the sarissa with both hands and to bear the shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax" (Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, 9.2). Once it is accepted that the phalangite did not have to employ a porpax to carry his shield, the offset rim and size of the hoplite shield are no longer impediments to wielding the sarissa.

You are being a little selective by only referring to one of our sources. Plutarch simply says 'heavy' aspis and 'long' dory - presumably the Macedonian 'sarissa', Polybius refers to these Achaeans as 'peltasts'. We have in fact had a detailed discussion of these reforms here on RAT in early 2008 "Pausanias on Achaean armament ca. 200 BC", which is still available in rather butchered form since the changeover to the latest version of RAT. Here is a quote from a previous post of mine on that thread.
"First, Pausanias was living in a Roman Province, and probably came from Lydia.He wrote his 'Tour of Greece' between 174 and 180 A.D. He does not show particularly good classical or scholarly knowledge, and when writing of the past tends to rely on 'tradition' and 'what he was told'.
Second, the Achaean League at around this time went through many changes. For example under Aratus, an early leader of the League it fielded barely 10,000 troops in 245 B.C. By 228 B.C. it could field 20,000. Initially, the army of the League consisted of citizens and mercenaries, equipped as Thureophroi ( i.e. Pausanias' 'long narrow shield' equals thureos, and thureophroi, with celtic style oval shields performed the function of earlier peltasts.)A force of 3,000 citizen foot and 300 citizen horse took the field under Philopoemen as Macedonian Allies against the Spartans at the battle of Sellasia in 222B.C. - plus a force of 1,000 Megalopolitan exiles equipped in the Macedonian manner(i.e. as heavy infantry sarissaphroi).Megalopolis was not technically a part of the League, but joined later. By 219 B.C. this force became a standing Army of the 3,000 citizen Infantry and 300 citizen cavalry, plus 8,000 mercenary foot and 500 mercenary horse.The army now included 500 Megalapolitan heavy infantry phalangites. In 208 B.C. Philopoemen re-organised the rest of the citizen infantry as Macedonian sarissaphroi. .The Achaean citizen infantry are hereafter referred to as 'peltasts' ( by Polybius, and caetrati), a direct latin translation in Livy). Philopoemen also reformed the Cavalry arm and re-organised it.
Third,It should be noted that Macedonian style sarissaphroi are often referred to as 'hoplites', and that Macedonian style shields are often referred to as 'Aspides' as well as 'Peltai' and that Greeks might prefer the term 'dorasi megalois' to the more uncouth Macedonian sarissa !! "

It is also clear that in 208 BC, Philopoemen reformed the whole Achaean citizen phalanx into Macedonian sarissaphoroi, from thureophoroi. There is no evidence,AFIK, that Achaea fielded traditional hoplites armed with 'dory/Argive aspides' at that time

And I can assure readers that it IS impossible to effectively wield a two-handed sarissa and a rimmed shield 85-90 cm in diameter ( the Argive aspis), from personal experience and that of Peter Connolly and other re-enactors, and this is so even if the porpax is not used and the shield simply hung from the neck ( which is impractical in itself anyway). See Connolly's various articles for how the neck-strap/[i]telamon was used in fact to support both sarissa and shield.
An "aspis with a neck-strap" in our sources probably means the Macedonian style pelta,(60-70 cm diameter) the reference to the neck-strap being used to distinguish it from other 'aspides' such as the traditional Argive one (85-90 cm diameter)

That is not to say that the later Macedonian pelta 60-70 cm in diameter, originally rimless, may not have acquired a rim at some time in some states - for some representations in iconography appear to have rims, though none of the half-dozen or so found have rims, IIRC. Both Giannis and I have pointed out before that 'aspis' simply means a sturdy 'heavy' circular shield ( as opposed to wicker and rawhide 'light' shields), and only became synonymous with the Argive rimmed aspis because this was the normal shield of the traditional hoplite.

And thirdly, there is no reason to doubt that the hoplite armed with doru and Argive shield existed well into the Hellenistic period. The classic hoplite remained in use among small independent poleis: an example of such troops is the the third century BC citizen soldiers of Teos armed with aspis, doru, machaira, and helmet (Robert and Robert, "Une Inscription grecque de Teos en Ionie. L'Union de Teos et de Kyrbissos," l. 33-4), and their continued use is demonstrated by several iconographic sources which continue to depict the Argive shield alongside contemporary equipment.

Certainly, traditional hoplite panoplies did not disappear immediately with the appearance of the Macedonian one, and existed into the 3 C BC, even in Macedonia ( see Markle: A Shield monument from Veria), but we cannot rely on iconography for continued use of traditional argive aspides. As an attribute of Gods and Heroes, it continued to appear in art, on coins and in sculpture right into Imperial Roman times - but I doubt anyone would suggest that it continued in use in those times! I don't believe there is any certainty as to when the traditional Argive aspis finally disappeared, other than 'sometime in the 3C BC'.

[MeinPanzer]

Where did you get "long abandoned" from? I don't think I said this....most of the city states seem to have changed one by one from hoplite arms to thureophoroi sometime after the Gallic invasions, c. 275 BC onward.....

That quote was from Fred - I was simply responding to both your statements.

It was the Aetolians success with missile armed peltasts/psiloi, and the relative failure of hoplites against the dreaded Gauls that likely caused a switch in the armament of citizen Militias from hoplite to a peltast-type 'intermediate' infantry, supposedly able both to fight as missile troops (requiring open order) and to be able to close up for hand-to-hand combat, though in reality they seem only to have fought hand-to-hand with their own kind, generally,and at the same time to adopt the Gallic-style thureos/oval shield.

I doubt that the switch can be attributed to the Aetolians' success specifically - we have no evidence for the adoption of the thureos prior to the mid-250s BC, and we have no idea when it was adopted in between. They clearly did change some time between 279 and 250 or so, but there could have been any number of reasons why by the time they finally made the switch.

You are being a little selective by only referring to one of our sources. Plutarch simply says 'heavy' aspis and 'long' dory - presumably the Macedonian 'sarissa', Polybius refers to these Achaeans as 'peltasts'. We have in fact had a detailed discussion of these reforms here on RAT in early 2008 "Pausanias on Achaean armament ca. 200 BC", which is still available in rather butchered form since the changeover to the latest version of RAT. Here is a quote from a previous post of mine on that thread.
[color=#0000FF]"First, Pausanias was living in a Roman Province, and probably came from Lydia.He wrote his 'Tour of Greece' between 174 and 180 A.D. He does not show particularly good classical or scholarly knowledge, and when writing of the past tends to rely on 'tradition' and 'what he was told'.

Plutarch writes that Philopoemen equipped the infantry with aspis, sarissa, helmets (kranesi), cuirasses (thoraxi), and greaves (periknemisi). Pausanias mentions Argive aspis, long spear (dorasi megalois), cuirasses (thorakas), and greaves (knemidas). It's quite clear that they are both drawing on the same source relating the statesman's life (as also do Livy and Justin), only Pausanias is breaking down the individual pieces of equipment for the reader of his day. That source is, of course, Polybius, who personally knew Philopoemen and was obviously an experienced military man himself. So, Pausanias' source is certainly sound, and it becomes a question then of accounting for the differences between the two accounts, and in this case, as you yourself have noted, nothing is mutually exclusive between them: aspis can refer to the Argive aspis, or to the other round shields in use in the third century.

This is not a case of Pausanias assuming that aspis only referred to the Argive aspis: in 1.13.2, he quotes an epigram that calls Macedonian shields captured by Pyrrhus aspides. The only other time he uses the term Argive aspis, he refers to a monument decorated with them, but it is clear that he specifically mentions their type because the battle it commemorated was supposedly the first in which that type of shield was employed (2.25.7), so he is careful to use this term - elsewhere he uses aspis dozens of times to describe Argive and non-Argive shields in varied contexts without qualifying it. The only difference which needs to be accounted for is the lack of mention of helmets in Pausanias, but this is probably because it was obvious that the hoplites had used helmets before the reform, so it didn't need to be mentioned like the other elements of the panoply which were changed or added did. So, there is no reason to doubt Pausanias' testimony in this case.

It is also clear that in 208 BC, Philopoemen reformed the whole Achaean citizen phalanx into Macedonian sarissaphoroi, from thureophoroi. There is no evidence,AFIK, that Achaea fielded traditional hoplites armed with 'dory/Argive aspides' at that time

It is well known from inventory accounts that shields could be stored in the hundreds in temple treasuries, for decades or even centuries. These were considered somewhat like arsenals, so that, much like treasuries located in temples, if the need arose, withdrawals could be made. If round shields were needed to arm citizen troops on wide scale quickly, they could easily have drawn on the hundreds (or even more) of Argive aspides which had been in use up until less than a century earlier and easily converted them into suitable shields by simply popping off the porpakes and adding on telamones.

And I can assure readers that it IS impossible to effectively wield a two-handed sarissa and a rimmed shield 85-90 cm in diameter ( the Argive aspis), from personal experience and that of Peter Connolly and other re-enactors, and this is so even if the porpax is not used and the shield simply hung from the neck ( which is impractical in itself anyway). See Connolly's various articles for how the neck-strap/[i]telamon was used in fact to support both sarissa and shield.
An "aspis with a neck-strap" in our sources probably means the Macedonian style pelta,(60-70 cm diameter) the reference to the neck-strap being used to distinguish it from other 'aspides' such as the traditional Argive one (85-90 cm diameter)

I think that, as with all reconstructive tests, they need to be widespread and they need to take all variables into account. It needs to be remembered that rather than two distinct types of shields, Macedonian pelte and Argive aspis, there is in fact a spectrum, both of size and shape, ranging from 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, up to 100 cm in diameter, dished, and with an offset rim. Shields between 60 and 80 cm are typically called Macedonian, those between 80 and 100 cm in diameter Argive, and yet we find numerous hybrids, like larger Macedonian shields with small rims, or smaller hoplite shields with small rims. I'd like to see thorough tests conducted with shields of all types so far known, so that it could be established, for instance, when a shield became too large/dished/large-rimmed to be able to employ with a sarissa.

Certainly, traditional hoplite panoplies did not disappear immediately with the appearance of the Macedonian one, and existed into the 3 C BC, even in Macedonia ( see Markle: A Shield monument from Veria), but we cannot rely on iconography for continued use of traditional argive aspides. As an attribute of Gods and Heroes, it continued to appear in art, on coins and in sculpture right into Imperial Roman times - but I doubt anyone would suggest that it continued in use in those times! I don't believe there is any certainty as to when the traditional Argive aspis finally disappeared, other than 'sometime in the 3C BC'.

I was only commenting on the appearance of the Argive aspis in non-heroic depictions. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence, epigraphical, iconographic, and perhaps textual (though I've not taken the time to look) to prove their continued existence after the Galatian invasion.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben/mein panzer wrote:

They clearly did change some time between 279 and 250 or so, but there could have been any number of reasons why by the time they finally made the switch

Certainly over-simplified reasons are to be generally avoided, but the Argive aspis/dory armed Hoplite Phalanx had been the mainstay of the armies of the poleis for the best part of 400 years or so. From 338 BC onward, they had been beaten by Macedonian phalanxes,( which rarely consisted of purely 'sarissaphoroi') but this did not prompt a change of armament, as Fred has pointed out. However, something else DID prompt the gradual abandonment of traditional hoplite panoplies shortly after 279 and that can only really be in response to the Gallic invasions. What other reasons can you suggest, especially as the change involved adopting a Gallic shield/thureos? ( The other change being adopting 'longche'/javelins ) - it looks very much as if armies were being 're-shaped' to fight Gallic invaders. The Boeotians seem to have been the first, shortly after 279 BC.(judging by several inscriptions, and tomb reliefs). However, by 245 BC, no more Gallic invasions having materialised, they switched to 'Macedonian' armament, having become an ally of Macedon.

Shields between 60 and 80 cm are typically called Macedonian, those between 80 and 100 cm in diameter Argive, and yet we find numerous hybrids, like larger Macedonian shields with small rims, or smaller hoplite shields with small rims. I'd like to see thorough tests conducted with shields of all types so far known, so that it could be established, for instance, when a shield became too large/dished/large-rimmed to be able to employ with a sarissa.

The picture is further complicated by the fact that the use of Tarentine mercenary cavalry ( most likely) spread the use of cavalry shields into the Greek/Hellenistic world. These were originally (4 C BC) slightly concave, apparently 60 cm or so diameter judging by 4 C BC coins, but rapidly grew in size. They could be ribbed/single grip ( like Gallic or Italic shields) or smooth faced, with porpax and rim - like a smaller Argive aspis. Even full sized aspides seem to have been used in the 3 C BC. Finds in the 3 C BC, especially the 'hybrids', are just as likely - perhaps more likely - to have been cavalry shields.

It is well known from inventory accounts that shields could be stored in the hundreds in temple treasuries, for decades or even centuries. These were considered somewhat like arsenals, so that, much like treasuries located in temples, if the need arose, withdrawals could be made. If round shields were needed to arm citizen troops on wide scale quickly, they could easily have drawn on the hundreds (or even more) of Argive aspides which had been in use up until less than a century earlier and easily converted them into suitable shields by simply popping off the porpakes and adding on telamones.

This is certainly hypothetically possible, but I can't think of any examples of this use of trophies to equip armies in the Greek literature. Furthermore shields, being largely organic materials, would quickly deteriorate and be unusable in not much more than ten years give or take. Also the Greeks had a well-known aversion to such 'sacrilege', as the Phokian War attests. We hear of new shields being supplied, but not use of old ones.The only example of this that springs to mind is Roman use of captured Gallic trophy shields and gear to equip the 6,000 'volones' in the immediate aftermath of Cannae - but these had been captured less than 10 years before.

Also, why would you take off porpaxes? I don't believe the idea of shields simply slung from the neck ( an incredible encumbrance, and body armour does this job much better), but even if this unlikelihood occurred, why remove porpaxes and render them completely useless for when it came to swords and hand-to-hand?

[Paralus]

And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their targets from their shoulders round in front of them, and with long spears set at one level...

Plutarch (Amel.Paull. 19.2) describing the Macedonians at Pydna. Clealry they are pulling their shields from "their shoulders" and around in front of them. Thus they are not on the arm but slung from the neck by a strap.

The shield represented in the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles along with the "hoplite" armour is some 75 cm in diameter from memory. Both are a match for the panoplies rendered on the Paullus monument. This led Markle to originally identify it as a hoplite shield. J K Anderson's view (Shields of Eight Palms' Width California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 9 (1976), pp. 1-6) is that these shields "are not unique, or even exceptional" and that they "could have covered its bearer from throat to thigh". The diameter of the monument shields is estimated at close to 80cm. Whilst the men on the monument are not fighting in phalanx, Markle has now claimed that the L&K shield must be identified with the smaller phalanx shield. Problem is this is in no way a 60 odd cm shield which the manuals proclaim as the best. If it were deeply bowled (and there's every reason to suspect so) such may have been a way of keeping an arm ring out of play whilst the shield hung from the neck.

In any case, as Anderson quotes Pritchett in commenting on the clash with the manuals' prescription:

"we seem to have the choice of accepting the figure of 0.80 m. from the few preserved artifacts... or of following Asklepiodotos who gives
the diameter as eight palms (0.6166 m.)." He adds that "it seems safer to follow the archaeological evidence."

[Astiryu1]

Plutarch (Amel.Paull. 19.2) describing the Macedonians at Pydna. Clealry they are pulling their shields from "their shoulders" and around in front of them. Thus they are not on the arm but slung from the neck by a strap.

It is my experiment shield but I simply cut a piece of plywood 3 ft in diameter added some rings to attach a rope porpax and a metal handle. After realizing the weight was too much and that all Hoplite shields were dished I added a strap to support the weight and when carrying to sling around on my back. When the shield hangs in front it is still capable of guarding but I do like having the option of better control.

[PMBardunias]

It needs to be remembered that rather than two distinct types of shields, Macedonian pelte and Argive aspis, there is in fact a spectrum, both of size and shape, ranging from 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, up to 100 cm in diameter, dished, and with an offset rim. Shields between 60 and 80 cm are typically called Macedonian, those between 80 and 100 cm in diameter Argive, and yet we find numerous hybrids, like larger Macedonian shields with small rims, or smaller hoplite shields with small rims. I'd like to see thorough tests conducted with shields of all types so far known, so that it could be established, for instance, when a shield became too large/dished/large-rimmed to be able to employ with a sarissa.

I wrote about the artificial differences we ascribe to Greek shields in an old thread: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=25996&p=232247&hilit=continuity+of+greek+shields#p232040">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=25996&p=232247&hilit=continuity+of+greek+shields#p232040<!-- l

When I wrote this, I had yet to read Blyth’s paper on the Vatican aspis, so I was simply relating my own opinion when I noted that a deep-bowled 70 cm diameter rimless pelta is functionally the same as a shallower 80+ cm diameter rimmed aspis. Blyth notes that with a shield built up of glued lathes, the need for a robust rim to halt edge-splitting is reduced compared to a solid wood aspis. In this the depth plays a major role as well, because a shallow aspis does not function to bear weight as a dome efficiently, and so requires the added stiffening of a rim perpendicular to the direction of force applied to the shield. In the almost hemispherical peltae, the dome shape lends support to the whole structure.

So, in short, I agree with Ruben that there is a continuum of shields, but would caution that the rim, which seems like an important feature in telling shields apart at first glance, is not a reliable character because it has a function that might simply be tied to construction method and shield profile.

Where I would caution Ruben is that my analysis tells me that the sarissa cannot be used with a rimmed shield efficiently. The reason for this is that regardless of diameter, the grip seems to be within the bowl of the shield. With a rim of some 4+ inches, the grip would have to be so loose to allow the hand to hold the sarissa shaft in a position that gets aroudn the rim that it could neither be used to support the hand nor effectively wield the shield. Draw it and you will see that the aspis would have to be almost parallel to the forearm for this to work. Of course we don’t know how rimmed the Spartan aspides were, and it is surely possible for them to have chopped down a section of the rim as a stop-gap measure.

[MeinPanzer]

It was the Aetolians success with missile armed peltasts/psiloi, and the relative failure of hoplites against the dreaded Gauls that likely caused a switch in the armament of citizen Militias from hoplite to a peltast-type 'intermediate' infantry

Certainly over-simplified reasons are to be generally avoided, but the Argive aspis/dory armed Hoplite Phalanx had been the mainstay of the armies of the poleis for the best part of 400 years or so. From 338 BC onward, they had been beaten by Macedonian phalanxes,( which rarely consisted of purely 'sarissaphoroi') but this did not prompt a change of armament, as Fred has pointed out. However, something else DID prompt the gradual abandonment of traditional hoplite panoplies shortly after 279 and that can only really be in response to the Gallic invasions. What other reasons can you suggest, especially as the change involved adopting a Gallic shield/thureos? ( The other change being adopting 'longche'/javelins ) - it looks very much as if armies were being 're-shaped' to fight Gallic invaders.

Responding to your earlier post quoted above, what was the "relative failure" of the hoplites against the Galatians? The hoplites stationed at Thermopylae were if anything greatly successful against the Galatians (Pausanias 10.21.3-4). When we do hear of hoplites failing against Galatians in an isolated engagement, it is explicitly stated that this happened "owing to the number and desperation of the Gauls" (Pausanias 10.22.6). The failure of the Greeks was allowing the Galatians to find a way around Thermopylae - a weakness that had nothing to do with the hoplite.

I believe the adoption of the thureos, which happened very likely first in Aetolia (but at what time before the 250s is unknown), was due to ease of construction and the overall flexibility of the arm. However, I don't think that the defeat of the Galatians by the Aetolians inspired them to adopt it - if anything, the weakness of the Galatians to missile fire was an indictment of the shield, which failed to provide ample protection (10.22.6).

The Boeotians seem to have been the first, shortly after 279 BC.(judging by several inscriptions, and tomb reliefs). However, by 245 BC, no more Gallic invasions having materialised, they switched to 'Macedonian' armament, having become an ally of Macedon.

If the Boeotians made the switch "shortly after 279 BC," then please produce an inscription or tomb relief which attests to the use of the thureos dating to before 250 BC.

The picture is further complicated by the fact that the use of Tarentine mercenary cavalry ( most likely) spread the use of cavalry shields into the Greek/Hellenistic world. These were originally (4 C BC) slightly concave, apparently 60 cm or so diameter judging by 4 C BC coins, but rapidly grew in size. They could be ribbed/single grip ( like Gallic or Italic shields) or smooth faced, with porpax and rim - like a smaller Argive aspis. Even full sized aspides seem to have been used in the 3 C BC. Finds in the 3 C BC, especially the 'hybrids', are just as likely - perhaps more likely - to have been cavalry shields.

It is known now, thanks to a paper presented by Pierre Juhel at the Second International Conference on Hellenistic Warfare, that the cavalry thureos (and among cavalry thureos seems to have been used as a general term to refer to oval as well as large round shields) was adopted already by 277-6, before Pyrrhus returned from Italy. A Delian inventory list mentions a hippikos thureos epichrusos dedicated by "king Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus," who could only have made the dedication between the years 277 and 276 when he reigned as king. Thus, the adoption of shields among cavalry was brought about by Galatian influence. There are two different types of cavalry shield: thureos-like and aspides. What evidence do you have that the large round cavalry shields employed in the Hellenistic period were single grip? I don't think I know of any evidence other than for such shields having porpakes and antilabai.

However, how do you account for, for instance, the shield carried by one phalangite on the Pergamon battle plaque, which is large, deeply dished, and possesses a small rim? That is certainly not a cavalry shield.

This is certainly hypothetically possible, but I can't think of any examples of this use of trophies to equip armies in the Greek literature.

These aren't trophies, these are either votive offerings or, more likely, dedications made to the state with the explicit purpose of arming citizens. Usually these citizens were ephebes, but they could also be poor individuals or even mercenaries. These were kept all together in temple treasuries.

Furthermore shields, being largely organic materials, would quickly deteriorate and be unusable in not much more than ten years give or take.

Hardly - of the 1,000 shields Pasio dedicated to Athens during the Corinthian war, 778 were still preserved in good condition on the Acropolis over twenty years later in 369/8 (IGII2, 1424a, l. 128-9 and 139-40), and it's likely that the others were used by the state for equipping war orphans and others. In 362, there is one entry from the Chalkotheke listing 956 shields, and the exact same number of shields is recorded again in 350 (IGII2, 120, l. 33-4; IGII2, 1440, l. 46-7). These are just the most plentiful examples - there are others from Athens and Delos attesting to shields being held in good condition for decades.

Also the Greeks had a well-known aversion to such 'sacrilege', as the Phokian War attests. We hear of new shields being supplied, but not use of old ones.The only example of this that springs to mind is Roman use of captured Gallic trophy shields and gear to equip the 6,000 'volones' in the immediate aftermath of Cannae - but these had been captured less than 10 years before.

The outrage of the Phocian war was that an international sanctuary was seized and its treasuries drained for the gain of a single state. Ordinarily, Greeks did not see removing money or arms from their own temples as sacrilegious, especially since arsenals like the Chalkotheke were mixed with other dedications in temples and accounted for by the treasurers as if dedications. The arms supplied to war orphans and ephebes had to be stored somewhere, and just as the "emergency fund" of the state was to be found in the Acropolis (Thucydides 2.13.4), so too were arms. We, for instance, hear of 318 cases of arrows stored in the Hecatompedon and Opisthodomos IGII2, 1424a, l. 121-2) which certainly seem to be stored arms and are not listed as dedications.

Also, why would you take off porpaxes? I don't believe the idea of shields simply slung from the neck ( an incredible encumbrance, and body armour does this job much better), but even if this unlikelihood occurred, why remove porpaxes and render them completely useless for when it came to swords and hand-to-hand?

Because if you needed to arm hundreds of men on a budget, aspides without porpakes but with telamones are better than no shields at all. It may have been thought that it wasn't much necessary for those in the rear ranks to be equipped with porpakes anyway, because if they were caught in hand-to-hand combat, chances were that the porpax would be of little help.

[PMBardunias]

Because if you needed to arm hundreds of men on a budget, aspides without porpakes but with telamones are better than no shields at all. It may have been thought that it wasn't much necessary for those in the rear ranks to be equipped with porpakes anyway, because if they were caught in hand-to-hand combat, chances were that the porpax would be of little help.

But why must you remove them at all? Since you have to move the antilabe to the shield's edge in order to hold the sarissa, why not just leave it there? Especially if Spartans still had a modular central portion of the porpax as their forefathers did to keep it from being used without consent.

[MeinPanzer]

In any case, as Anderson quotes Pritchett in commenting on the clash with the manuals' prescription:

we seem to have the choice of accepting the figure of 0.80 m. from the few preserved artifacts... or of following Asklepiodotos who gives
the diameter as eight palms (0.6166 m.)." He adds that "it seems safer to follow the archaeological evidence."

As Liampi has keenly noted, though, there is no conflict between Asclepiodotus and the archaeological record. Asclepiodotus was writing a prescriptive manual, and he states that the Macedonian shield is the best "of the shields of the phalanx," in the same way that Xenophon states that the Boeotian is the best helmet for cavalrymen to employ in "On Horsemanship" - it clearly was not the only kind which had been used before, but the author considered it the best. The Greek of this statement shows that there were many kinds which could, or had, been employed by phalangites in the past. So the shield facing found at Pergamon, a little over 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, fits perfectly with the Macedonian shield of Asclepiodotus' description, while the other shields found represent some of the other types in use.

So, in short, I agree with Ruben that there is a continuum of shields, but would caution that the rim, which seems like an important feature in telling shields apart at first glance, is not a reliable character because it has a function that might simply be tied to construction method and shield profile.

I think we are in agreement here - I disagree with the line that the Macedonian shield and the Argive aspis can be cleanly separated into "relatively small, shallow, rimless" and "relatively large and domed, with a rim." The modern category of "Macedonian shield" (which does not directly correspond with the ancient one, as shown by Asclepiodotus' description) includes shields that vary drastically in shape and size, including some with rims which much more closely resembe Argive aspides than, for instance, the Pergamon shield.

Where I would caution Ruben is that my analysis tells me that the sarissa cannot be used with a rimmed shield efficiently. The reason for this is that regardless of diameter, the grip seems to be within the bowl of the shield. With a rim of some 4+ inches, the grip would have to be so loose to allow the hand to hold the sarissa shaft in a position that gets aroudn the rim that it could neither be used to support the hand nor effectively wield the shield. Draw it and you will see that the aspis would have to be almost parallel to the forearm for this to work. Of course we don’t know how rimmed the Spartan aspides were, and it is surely possible for them to have chopped down a section of the rim as a stop-gap measure.

I think it is clear that rim sizes could vary, and so only shields with smaller rims could have been used or, as you suggest, rims were cut down. But even so, I would suggest that a loose loop passing around the left wrist rather than an antilabe was in use. Such a loop was not necessary to support the shield, though, as that was the purpose of the telamon, and I disagree that it could not be used to effectively wield the shield. With such a large shield, as long as the phalangite could keep it in front of the exposed portion of his body, it was serving its purpose. And yes, keep in mind that I am only suggesting that this was a stop-gap measure - it may have been somewhat impractical, but if the rear ranks of a phalanx rarely engaged in close combat and yet needed to carry shields, this would have been a pragmatic compromise.

But why must you remove them at all? Since you have to move the antilabe to the shield's edge in order to hold the sarissa, why not just leave it there? Especially if Spartans still had a modular central portion of the porpax as their forefathers did to keep it from being used without consent.

The antilabe would not have to have been moved to the shield's edge, only lengthened into a loop through which the forearm could pass. The porpax, though, would have jutted out and prevented the bearer from tucking into the curvature of the shield, and so it would then need to be removed.

[Paralus]

Asclepiodotus was writing a prescriptive manual, and he states that the Macedonian shield is the best "of the shields of the phalanx," in the same way that Xenophon states that the Boeotian is the best helmet for cavalrymen to employ in "On Horsemanship" - it clearly was not the only kind which had been used before, but the author considered it the best. The Greek of this statement shows that there were many kinds which could, or had, been employed by phalangites in the past. So the shield facing found at Pergamon, a little over 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, fits perfectly with the Macedonian shield of Asclepiodotus' description, while the other shields found represent some of the other types in use.

Agreed. The quote was simply a reaction to those (as Markle originally) dismissing shields such as those on the wall of the tomb of L&K as phalangite shields - insisting they are hoplite - as they do not match an uneccessarilly restrictive read of that passage of Ascepiodotus. It might appear, given the very close similarity, that these are little different to those on the Paullus monument.