The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army
|
The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army
|
06-29-2010, 11:59 AM
[
Paralus|Michael Park
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander! Academia.edu 
06-29-2010, 05:37 PM
Quote:All three versions of the Hellenistic manual make it clear that they are referring to the earlier tactical methods of the Greeks of Xenophon’s day, as well as later Macedonian practice, and that ‘heavy/close-order Infantry’ need not necessarily be Macedonian style, though this was considered the best. ( the manuals refer to sources pre-Macedonian such as Xenophon, Clearchus and Iphicrates)…Arrian: 32 “ Briefly and systematically I have given an account of the old Greek and Macedonian formations…” Quote:Whilst, by Polybius’ day, ( the likely original source for the Hellenistic manuals), the ‘heavy Infantry/Hoplites’ were indeed “armed in the Macedonian manner”, such had not been the case earlier, and as I have noted the manuals claim to be ‘generic’ and cover earlier ‘heavy infantry’ Aelian and Arrian do refer to earlier sources, and they do discuss hoplites as well as phalangites, but as I wrote before, it is widely recognized that they combined and altered earlier sources (i.e. adding in commentary on Roman cavalry alongside discussion of Hellenistic types). Asclepiodotus never mentions any offensive weapon for the heavy infantry other than the "long Macedonian spear." Please point out where Asclepiodotus (and not Aelian or Arrian) makes clear that he is writing about any sort of heavy infantry other than phalangites. Quote: note also that the Macedonian shield is here called ‘aspis’, clearly meant in the generic sense of shields, rather than specifically ‘Argive aspis’, obsolete by Polybius’ day…. As I have already noted, aspis was a generic term, and could refer to both the Macedonian shield and the Argive aspis. Quote:Stringent tests while optimum, are not necessary to determine ‘basic’ facts – and the test I suggested earlier is sufficient to establish the necessity of a porpax, and consequent impossibility of using a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ with sarissa… Such facts, no matter how "basic" you may think them to be, need to be established through proper tests, and not just supposition. Quote:…the Pontic Pharnakes shield in the Getty museum does not, in fact, have a diameter of 80 cm ( see below) and the smallest rimmed Argive aspis is about 82 cm. Quote:Your variation is rather loose, and the size range is not as broad as “60-80” cm.The sizes are in fact as follows:- Firstly, the shield of Pharnaces differs between 79.8 and 81.4 cm in diameter in its current state (Paul Bernard, “Bouclier inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au nom de Pharnace I, roi du Pont,” in Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7 (1993): 11), with the former number measuring the diameter between dags, and the latter between the tabs on the axes. The actual diameter, when these were folded in (as on the Pergamon shield), is 78-78.5 cm. Secondly, only the first calculation for the shields from Staro Bonce (73.4 cm) is worth anything; the other two are too fragmentary to give any sort of useful estimate. To these I might add: The painted shields from the Katerini tomb: 72 cm. The shields in relief from the tomb at Vergina: 70 cm. The tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: 75 cm. The shields in relief from the Veroia monument: 73-76 cm. The tomb of Spelia in Eordaia: 69 and 72 cm. The shields in relief from Archontiko: c. 62 cm. What source are you using for the Venice shield's size? My source (Polito's work on weapons friezes) gives a size of 68 cm, not 70. Non-life size iconographic sources are not of much use in this debate, unfortunately, as estimates can vary widely: compared to your 66-70 cm for the Agios Athanasios shields, Chatzopoulos estimates their size relative to the individuals as 71-86 cm! So, we can do a final tally of the "hard" numbers: Vegora: 65.6 cm Dion: 73.6 cm Staro Bonce: 73.4 cm Pergamon: 66 cm Pontus: 78 cm Shield mould from Memphis: 70 cm Venice relief: 68 or 70 (?) cm Katerini: 72 cm. Vergina: 70 cm. Lyson and Kallikles: 75 cm. Veroia: 73, 74, 76, 76 Spelia in Eordaia: 69 and 72 cm. Archontiko: c. 62 cm. Sizes thus are: 62, 65.6, 66, 68 or 70, 69, 70, 70, 72, 72, 73, 73.4, 73.6, 74, 75, 76, 76, 78. The spread is almost exactly between 60 and 80 cm, though with an obvious concentration around 70 cm. When these are lined up with the range of sizes for Argive aspides, you get a nice spectrum running from 62 cm all the way up to 100+ cm. Quote:As I have said, we can be quite precise about THE Macedonian shield ( see above); the diameter varied only between very narrow limits due to the size of the forearm ( itself clearly implying use of porpax). Further, these shields were not of widely different sizes, some rimless, some rimmed. The existence of shield moulds such as the ptolemaic one ( see attached) shows that these were 'mass produced', as does the fact that Ptolemy could despatch thousands of shields at a time to a Greek state to re-arm, also implying a high degree of standardisation and mass production. ALL the evidence is quite consistent. Once again, this view is not borne out by the evidence. And we know that shields were mass produced, and yet on the Pydna relief and the Pergamon battle plaque, we see that almost no two shields are alike, with some possessing rims, others none, and varied decoration. There is thus much room for variety even with mass production. Quote:As to the idea that a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ was used with the sarissa, you are relying on a single use of this by Pausanias, writing nearly 300 years after the event, and the probability is that he was mistaken, and his source said simply ‘aspis’, which we have seen from the manuals could be used to describe the Macedonian rimless shield. This likelihood is heightened by Plutarch’s description ( 50 years or so before Pausanias) of the re-arming, for he uses ‘aspis’ only. I will simply repeat what I wrote before: 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. Quote:As to the reference to Cleomenes teaching the Spartans to use the sarissa and “to carry their shields/aspides by a strap/ochanus instead of by a fixed handle/porpax”, this does not necessarily mean in battle, and one definition of ‘aspis’ is a shield with a porpax – there is no implication that porpaxes were dispensed with. To muddy the waters further ‘porpax’ is a generic handle ( and can be used of part of a horse’s bridle for instance), not just armband, so the reference could be to the handgrips of ‘thureoi’ for all we know!( if Sparta went through a ‘thureos’ stage like other states ). This is an incredibly tortured reading. The translation is "he raised a body of four thousand hoplites, whom he taught to use the sarissa with both hands instead of the doru and to bear the aspis with ochane, not with porpax." The implication is quite clear that he is referring to how the men fought with these pieces of equipment. Where do you find that a definition of aspis is "a shield with a porpax"? LSJ simply defines it as shield, without any specific qualifications. And finally, porpax only ever refers to the armband inside the Argive aspis, and not a grip, so the statement is clear.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian 
06-30-2010, 06:40 AM
Ruben wrote:
Quote:Aelian and Arrian do refer to earlier sources, and they do discuss hoplites as well as phalangites, but as I wrote before, it is widely recognized that they combined and altered earlier sources (i.e. adding in commentary on Roman cavalry alongside discussion of Hellenistic types). Asclepiodotus never mentions any offensive weapon for the heavy infantry other than the "long Macedonian spear." Please point out where Asclepiodotus (and not Aelian or Arrian) makes clear that he is writing about any sort of heavy infantry other than phalangites. You will know as well as I that the ‘prologue’ describing the earlier works and writers present in Aelian and Arrian is missing from Ascepiodotus, but was almost certainly present originally. The most likely original for the manual was Polybius, via Poseidonius, and it is fairly clear that the ‘prologue’ was probably in that original. All three appear to have been modified by their respective authors. One cannot, I think, take any one version as ‘gospel’. Some scholars believe Asclepiodotus to be furthest from the ‘original’ e.g. “P .A. Stadter, CP 73 (1978) 117-118, however, argues that all three authors used Poseidonius directly, but Asclepiodotus introduced a number of modifications. Poseidonius himself is known to have continued the Histories of Polybius, and it is probable that Polybius' own (lost) tactical treatise provided the basis for the Stoic's tactical work. Certainly the striking resemblance between Polybius 18.29.2-5 and 18.29.7-30.4, on the one hand, and Aelian 14.2-6, Arrian, Tact. 12.6-10, and Asclepiodotus, Tact. 5.1-2, on the other, argues very strongly for Polybius' position as the principal source for the entire tradition.” FWIW, Asclepiodotus speaks of THE Macedonian shield, and defines it exactly as the others. Quote:Why would a test such as I described not be a ‘proper’ way to determine physical limits of reaching around a shield, or what happens to a hanging disk when you thrust ? Just do it !!Quote:Stringent tests while optimum, are not necessary to determine ‘basic’ facts – and the test I suggested earlier is sufficient to establish the necessity of a porpax, and consequent impossibility of using a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ with sarissa… Quote:There is something wrong with these figures. To begin with, the ‘dags’ vary quite considerably in size- quite obviously in the photo by a third or more. Blowing up the photo and scaling off shows that many of the ‘tabs’ are around 23-25 mm wide each.This means we must subtract 4.6-5.0 cm from the 81.4 giving some 75-76 cm diameter which must be reduced further if some allowance is made for the thickness of the rim, say an arbitrary 5 mm, giving an original diameter of 74-75 cm or less. By measuring the diameter of the outside circular ridge, one also gets a figure of 75 cm or so, and definitely not 78 cm or more.Quote:…the Pontic Pharnakes shield in the Getty museum does not, in fact, have a diameter of 80 cm ( see below) and the smallest rimmed Argive aspis is about 82 cm.Firstly, the shield of Pharnaces differs between 79.8 and 81.4 cm in diameter in its current state (Paul Bernard, “Bouclier inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au nom de Pharnace I, roi du Pont,” in Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7 (1993): 11), with the former number measuring the diameter between dags, and the latter between the tabs on the axes. The actual diameter, when these were folded in (as on the Pergamon shield), is 78-78.5 cm. Quote:Secondly, only the first calculation for the shields from Staro Bonce (73.4 cm) is worth anything; the other two are too fragmentary to give any sort of useful estimate. That is debateable – the figures I gave came from “ Studies in 3 C BC shields found in Republic of Macedonia” – Piccardo, Amendola et al 2008, and seem to have been calculated from known diameters of the various concentric circles found on shields B and C ( shield A's actual diameter being measurable) Quote:To these I might add:Someone has been reading Markle, I see ! Quote:What source are you using for the Venice shield's size? My source (Polito's work on weapons friezes) gives a size of 68 cm, not 70. Don’t recall….someone’s personal measurement, I believe…Many times, one discovers that variation in measurements varies not just with the measurer, but also what exactly is being measured - e.g. like some real shieldss which are not exactly circular, the same may be true of the Venetian example, and both 68 and 70 cm thus be correct......a famous example is the the 'Salaminian metrological relief', initially measured wrongly. Quote:Non-life size iconographic sources are not of much use in this debate, unfortunately, as estimates can vary widely: compared to your 66-70 cm for the Agios Athanasios shields, Chatzopoulos estimates their size relative to the individuals as 71-86 cm! 86cm for the larger shields is impossible…it would imply the figures were over 190 cm/6 ft 3 inches tall ! IIRC, I read somewhere that Macedonians from warrior graves were around 165-170 cm ( 5ft 5 ins-5 ft 7 ins) tall. Still, I’d agree it is hard to place much reliance on such depictions – the artists, after all, were not making “scale drawings”. Another example is the ‘pair’ of shields from the Spelia tomb – yet one is 69cm the other 72 cm ! The Veria sculptures were presumably also meant to be the same, five sculpted ‘Macedonian’ shields, but vary between 73-76 cm (plus two argive aspides 92-95 cm ). The same for the archontiko heroon/unfinished tomb – and since 62 cm is rather too small to cover the forearm, I would suggest the “aprox 62 cm” is a little under “life-sized”. When artists/sculptors/sculptors dimensions of the same thing can vary 3-4 cm, such depictions must be taken as approximate at best. Quote:So, we can do a final tally of the "hard" numbers:I don’t accept 62 cm as accurate for the reason I’ve given, and the 78 cm of the Pharnakes example is also clearly incorrect, and in reality closer to 75 cm or so. This narrows the range to 66-75 cm or so.However, we need hardly quibble over the odd few cms! I think we would agree that the 'Macedonian shield' was generally 66-70 cm diameter..... Quote:The spread is almost exactly between 60 and 80 cm, though with an obvious concentration around 70 cm. When these are lined up with the range of sizes for Argive aspides, you get a nice spectrum running from 62 cm all the way up to 100+ cm.The smallest size for an rimmed aspis I know of is 82 cm. I don’t know of examples over 100 cm either – is this another “approximately life-sized” sculptural example? Quote:The existence of ONE possible rim, and that doubtful ( see Paul B’s posts, and I agree with him that the shield in question is probably damaged and in fact rimless). If a ‘mould’ was used, decoration could hardly be ‘varied’ and the slight variations seen on the three shields on the Pydna relief are therefore likely to be individual variation of artists…..Quote:As I have said, we can be quite precise about THE Macedonian shield ( see above); the diameter varied only between very narrow limits due to the size of the forearm ( itself clearly implying use of porpax). Further, these shields were not of widely different sizes, some rimless, some rimmed. The existence of shield moulds such as the ptolemaic one ( see attached) shows that these were 'mass produced', as does the fact that Ptolemy could despatch thousands of shields at a time to a Greek state to re-arm, also implying a high degree of standardisation and mass production. ALL the evidence is quite consistent. Quote:…or Plutarch, on exactly the same grounds. It is even possible that Plutarch was Pausanias’ source, in which case Pausanias is clearly in error…Quote:As to the idea that a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ was used with the sarissa, you are relying on a single use of this by Pausanias, writing nearly 300 years after the event, and the probability is that he was mistaken, and his source said simply ‘aspis’, which we have seen from the manuals could be used to describe the Macedonian rimless shield. This likelihood is heightened by Plutarch’s description ( 50 years or so before Pausanias) of the re-arming, for he uses ‘aspis’ only. Quote:I won’t argue with your interpretation, save to say that the other is possible. The reason that some think that the defining point of ‘aspis’ is that it has a porpax, not that it is circular, is in part because aspis is used of ‘long’ Egyptian shields….Quote:As to the reference to Cleomenes teaching the Spartans to use the sarissa and “to carry their shields/aspides by a strap/ochanus instead of by a fixed handle/porpax”, this does not necessarily mean in battle, and one definition of ‘aspis’ is a shield with a porpax – there is no implication that porpaxes were dispensed with. To muddy the waters further ‘porpax’ is a generic handle ( and can be used of part of a horse’s bridle for instance), not just armband, so the reference could be to the handgrips of ‘thureoi’ for all we know!( if Sparta went through a ‘thureos’ stage like other states ). As to Plutarch’s emphasis, it merely heightens the difference between previous and new ‘Macedonian’ equipment with its ‘ochanus/telamon’ – necessary to help support the weight of the shield in particular, which being rimless and smaller than the Argive aspis, could not be rested on the shoulder….. It does not say the aspis did not have a porpax, and should perhaps be better read as “bear the the aspis with ochanus rather than its porpax”
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country) "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton Paul McDonnell-Staff
06-30-2010, 08:03 AM
Quote:You will know as well as I that the ‘prologue’ describing the earlier works and writers present in Aelian and Arrian is missing from Ascepiodotus, but was almost certainly present originally. The most likely original for the manual was Polybius, via Poseidonius, and it is fairly clear that the ‘prologue’ was probably in that original. All three appear to have been modified by their respective authors. One cannot, I think, take any one version as ‘gospel’. Stadter is the only one to postulate that Asclepiodotus modified Posidonius' work while Arrian and Aelian did not, because he thought aht Asclepiodotus was modifying his teacher's work while the latter two were merely copying from a canonical text. To me this seems way off the mark though, as it is apparent that Arrian and Aelian were more than happy to modify their manuals to suit their (and their audience's) tastes. Devine has shown, thanks to the survival of much of Polybius' writing on the Macedonian phalanx in his histories, that all manuals specifically drew on or copied from his work to write on the phalanx, and this clearly included the writing on the Macedonian shield. Quote:There is something wrong with these figures. To begin with, the ‘dags’ vary quite considerably in size- quite obviously in the photo by a third or more. Blowing up the photo and scaling off shows that many of the ‘tabs’ are around 23-25 mm wide each.This means we must subtract 4.6-5.0 cm from the 81.4 giving some 75-76 cm diameter which must be reduced further if some allowance is made for the thickness of the rim, say an arbitrary 5 mm, giving an original diameter of 74-75 cm or less. By measuring the diameter of the outside circular ridge, one also gets a figure of 75 cm or so, and definitely not 78 cm or more. What are you working from to derive these numbers? That photograph you posted before? If so, that's an off-centre picture, and is hardly suitable for estimating such measurements. Bernard's article provides an excellent large head-on photo of the shield. The dags don't vary considerably in size, they are simply bent at various angles so that in your photo they appear to be of different sizes. You are also overestimating the size of the tabs, which project out barely over 2 cm. And if the Pergamon shield is anything to judge by, then there was next to no "rim" on this kinds of shield, so no more than a few milimetres is necessary there (working from Peltz's drawing of the shield in profile in his article on its restoration, I would estimate maybe two or three millimetres). So, we may estimate 2.1 cm x 2 = 4.2 cm + the .2 for the rim deducted from the 81.4 cm = 76.7 cm for total diametre - a little less than my previous rougher estimate, but still larger than any other shield found. Quote:That is debateable – the figures I gave came from “ Studies in 3 C BC shields found in Republic of Macedonia” – Piccardo, Amendola et al 2008, and seem to have been calculated from known diameters of the various concentric circles found on shields B and C ( shield A's actual diameter being measurable) Vera Bitrakova Grozdanova, “Makedonian shield from Bon?e,” in Scripta Praehistorica in Honorem Biba Teržan, ed. Martina Ble?i? et al. (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2007) and Pierre Juhel and Dushko Temelkoski, “Fragments de “boucliers macédoniens” au nom du roi Démétrios trouvés à Staro Bon?e (République de Macédoine),” in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 162 (2007) both state that the remains were too rough of the other two shields to estimate. Quote:Someone has been reading Markle, I see ! Chatzopoulos, actually, who provides a more comprehensive list. Quote:86cm for the larger shields is impossible…it would imply the figures were over 190 cm/6 ft 3 inches tall ! IIRC, I read somewhere that Macedonians from warrior graves were around 165-170 cm ( 5ft 5 ins-5 ft 7 ins) tall. Chatzopoulos states that he assumes their height to be 170 cm, and 172 cm is actually the average height of Hellenistic males of military age based on skeletal evidence, but it just goes to show you that there's plenty of wiggle room in measuring such images. Quote:I don’t accept 62 cm as accurate for the reason I’ve given, and the 78 cm of the Pharnakes example is also clearly incorrect, and in reality closer to 75 cm or so. This narrows the range to 66-75 cm or so.However, we need hardly quibble over the odd few cms! I think we would agree that the 'Macedonian shield' was generally 66-70 cm diameter..... I've not seen the original report on the Archontiko shields, so I can't comment on the actual measurements, but I don't see why a 62 cm shield would be too small to cover the forearm. As for the Pharnaces example, I've shown above that its diametre is 76.7 cm, and so we have a range from 62 to 76.7 cm, with the majority of examples falling around 70 cm in diametre. Quote:The smallest size for an rimmed aspis I know of is 82 cm. I don’t know of examples over 100 cm either – is this another “approximately life-sized” sculptural example? Schwartz, in "Reinstating the Hoplite," 31, mentions a shield facing from Olympia which measures 120 cm in diametre. Quote:The existence of ONE possible rim, and that doubtful ( see Paul B’s posts, and I agree with him that the shield in question is probably damaged and in fact rimless). If a ‘mould’ was used, decoration could hardly be ‘varied’ and the slight variations seen on the three shields on the Pydna relief are therefore likely to be individual variation of artists….. Yet again, you are ignoring the smaller rim seen on the shield at far right as well. And if the artists of the Pergamon battle plaque and Pydna relief embellished these shields with their own fanciful decorations, then why should we trust any details of the shields? It simply makes sense given the numbers of shields which would have been necessary to arm a large phalanx that shields were manufactured with differing moulds, resulting in a phalanx which possessed shields with varied decoration. Quote:‘aspides’ need not be round, e.g Xenophon calls Egyptian shields that reach ‘almost to the feet’ aspides…. It can refer to any number of different shields, but, once again, since they are clearly drawing from the same source, "aspis" in this case refers to the Argive shield. Quote:…or Plutarch, on exactly the same grounds. It is even possible that Plutarch was Pausanias’ source, in which case Pausanias is clearly in error… That's highly implausible. If an ancient author could get easy access to direct and accurate accounts (Aratus, Polybius), why would he drawn on a contemporary? Quote:Quote:As to the reference to Cleomenes teaching the Spartans to use the sarissa and “to carry their shields/aspides by a strap/ochanus instead of by a fixed handle/porpax”, this does not necessarily mean in battle, and one definition of ‘aspis’ is a shield with a porpax – there is no implication that porpaxes were dispensed with. To muddy the waters further ‘porpax’ is a generic handle ( and can be used of part of a horse’s bridle for instance), not just armband, so the reference could be to the handgrips of ‘thureoi’ for all we know!( if Sparta went through a ‘thureos’ stage like other states ). Aspis was a generic term which referred to all kinds of shields of all shapes and sizes, including thyreoi, so this line of reasoning makes no sense.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
06-30-2010, 05:58 PM
I did some quick and dirty experimentation last night and found some interesting things.
Rims are irrelevent in whether a shield can be used with a sarissa or not. All that matters in the absolute diameter and the depth of the shield as well as porpax placement. The first image below shows my experimental pelta. It consists of an arc representing the right half of a cross section of a pelta of 68 cm diameter, thus it is 34 cm long. This is measured not as the total length of the wood, since this would include the curvature and make it longer than 34 cm, but as a base-line beneath the arc as you would measure the radius of a circle. Yes, that is a PVC porpax. Edit: I should note that I originally set the porpax in the same position on my arm as on the Pydna monument, but decided to push it up even further. It was position so as to be flush up against my bicep with my arm bent, thus in some images it looks like you could push it further up my arm. You could push the porpax further up to the crook of your arm, but I just figured it would be more comfortable simply to move the porpax to the right. This first image is a rimless pelta. My apologies to Paul M-S for I could use a 68 cm peltae, but only at the acute angle shown in the left panel. I can move the pelta around in front more if I move the porpax off-center to the right, as in the center panel. The third panel shows that putting the shield in front of me with a centered porpax is impossible. The next image shows a similar sized pelta whos diameter includes as 4.5 cm rim. The first panel show that it can be used just like the non-rimmed. In fact because the rim turns away from you, it is actually more handy than a shield of the same diameter and curvature without a rim included. The second panel shows the porpax moved to the right. The third shows the problem with attempting to put the shield in front of you with a centrally located porpax again. The next image is a deep pelta of the type we have been discussing. It cannot be used with a central porpax as seen in the first panel. It can be used if you move the porpax substantially to the right. There is another way I did not test, and that is to make the porpax jut out from the center of the shield on a strut or on top of fill in the center of the deep porpax (as seen to some extent with a Kalkhan shield). This too would change the angle. In this last image I decided to try and hold a sarissa with an aspis. I happened to have a very shallow aspis section that had a reduced rim. This would be a very uncommon aspis, but could be said to be within the variation seen to exist. It is almost impossible to hold a sarissa with the porpax centrally located. Unlike the deep pelta, you actually do worse if you move the porpax right in this shield, because most of the curve is in the steep shoulder region. If I really force my arm to bend away from the shield, probably flexing the shield unrealistically, I can just grip the sarissa. I don't think you could fight this way, and the angle requires your body to be almost completely side on with the arm thrust forth. The fore arm would be largely useless for anything other than 'pool cuing" the sarissa through in that unrealistic manner SCA types do at times.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url] A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
07-01-2010, 06:24 AM
Ruben wrote:
Quote:Yet again, you are ignoring the smaller rim seen on the shield at far right as well. And if the artists of the Pergamon battle plaque and Pydna relief embellished these shields with their own fanciful decorations, then why should we trust any details of the shields? It simply makes sense given the numbers of shields which would have been necessary to arm a large phalanx that shields were manufactured with differing moulds, resulting in a phalanx which possessed shields with varied decoration. The figure on the right certainly does not have an offset rim like an ‘argive aspis’, and this is what I thought you were arguing for. It appears to have a ‘rim/edge guard’ like many shields including the Italian ‘scutum’ – a vestigial rim at best, and a similar one is visible on the Venice example I posted, but I would call such a shield ‘rimless’. Or it may also simply be the decorative raised concentric circles we see on the extant examples. I would certainly agree that it is possible there were different sized shields/moulds, to accommodate different forearm lengths, but 66 or 70 cm would suit most men. (“8 palms” ). As to shield decoration, I think it reasonable that a unit such as the ‘Chalkaspides’(Bronze shields) would be alike – and of course it is only the bronze faced type that has survived the vagaries of time. Others, such as the ‘Leukaspides’/White shields may not have had bronze facings at all, and would certainly have required bronze edging ( to avoid weapons splitting them), as we see on ‘scuta’ and the rims of non-bronze faced ‘argive aspides’. Quote:That's highly implausible. If an ancient author could get easy access to direct and accurate accounts (Aratus, Polybius), why would he drawn on a contemporary?Hardly contemporary! Plutarch ‘floreat’ c. 100 AD and Pausanias 75 years later – some 3 generations later, and one might expect that the works of Plutarch would likely have been more accessible than the much older ones, that needed repeated copying to survive…..
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country) "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton Paul McDonnell-Staff
07-01-2010, 06:41 AM
Congratulations, Paul B. !! I think you have demonstrated the adage that "an ounce of experimentation is worth a pound of theorising" quite well.
Quote:All that matters in the absolute diameter and the depth of the shield as well as porpax placement....in other words, forearm length, and the ability to hold the sarissa shaft. Quote: ....for I could use a 68 cm peltaeI expect you would find you could use a larger pelta, if you used a narrower porpax, or pushed your arm through to the limit, even more with even a slightly offset porpax. My own reconstruction of pelta and sarissa ( over 30 years ago !! ) was shallow dished, 70 cm diameter, and had a narrow bronze(brass) porpax, backed by a broader felt 'sleeve'. The antilabe ( I made it like the Pydna relief, unlike Connolly's 'wrist strap') was placed right at the rim. It was very comfortable to use and I found I could wield the sarissa with or without using the antilabe quite comfortably. The narrow bronze porpax ring and felt 'sleeve' combination meant I could bend my arm easily and comfortably ( a 'solid' sleeve like yours would be uncomfortable jammed in the elbow crease....) and of course the antilabe could be grasped instantly if reverting to sword/secondary weapon.... Quote:In this last image I decided to try and hold a sarissa with an aspis. I happened to have a very shallow aspis section that had a reduced rim ....In fact a cross section of what an 'argive aspis' with its rim cut off would be like.... and it would appear that even thus modified, such a shield is not very practical for sarissa use. It would seem we have explored the theme of the Macedonian shield fairly fully and I apologise to Fred and Paralus for hijacking the thread -this subject really ought to have had a thread of it's own - "The Macedonian Shield" - as we did with similar subjects such as the 'sarissa'. Perhaps we can now get back to the proper subject - general discussion of the Argead Macedonian Army ?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country) "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton Paul McDonnell-Staff
07-01-2010, 02:42 PM
A couple of points:
Based on the tests I did I don't think that the aspis could have been used with a sarissa even if held by just the antilabe. The reason for this became apparent fro the tests: that steep curve, all most all of which occurrs near the edge is a problem. Even to use an antilabe, you'd either have to secure it to the outer curve right up near the rim or make it so long and loose that maneuvering the shield would be very difficult even hanging from a strap. You could of course chop a section out like a Boeotian shield, but I've not seen evidence of this. Though Connolly did suggest that Thebans did just this to use sarissa-type spears pre-Phillip- not likely. In consolation to Ruben, rims are fine on shields for sarissaphoroi, so small rimmed shields pose no problem and his rimmed version of the Pydna shield would work. Back on the original topic: One thing that struck me from this test is that any of the larger diameter peltas require a markedly side-on stance. This is not a problem since most recreations assume this anyway, but it would seem to force sarissaphoroi into the specially close formation attributed to Phillip- inspired by Homer's heroes. Some have puzzled over this or cited it as evidence that hoplites did not form in close order. I think the answer is simply that hoplites faced forward, not sideways, with shields only slightly overlapped. Man and shield governed a lateral spacing that is more than than assumed by sarissaphoroi standing sideways.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url] A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
07-01-2010, 06:12 PM
Great work, Paul. This is exactly the kind of testing which needs to be done to establish some facts. However, I think these have only confirmed what we all already knew or suspected: that a sarissa can be held with both hands while carrying a rimless shield of around 66-70 cm with a porpax; that a similar shield with a relatively small rim can be used in the same way; and that a sarissa cannot be held with both hands while carrying either a deeply-dished rimless shield or a regular Argive shield with a porpax. I am not contesting any of these facts.
Quote:The figure on the right certainly does not have an offset rim like an ‘argive aspis’, and this is what I thought you were arguing for. It appears to have a ‘rim/edge guard’ like many shields including the Italian ‘scutum’ – a vestigial rim at best, and a similar one is visible on the Venice example I posted, but I would call such a shield ‘rimless’. Or it may also simply be the decorative raised concentric circles we see on the extant examples. What I am postulating is that the difference between a minor rim, like that Paul employed on his shallow shield, and a larger one, like that of an Argive shield, is one of degrees. I think we fundamentally disagree in how we see the evidence: I see a spectrum of shield sizes, shapes, and features, while you see concrete dichotomies. The leftmost phalangite carries a shield with a rim or edge guard of some kind, but it does not stick out like the rim of the rightmost man's shield does, and so the latter seems to be a small rim and not a guard. Quote:I would certainly agree that it is possible there were different sized shields/moulds, to accommodate different forearm lengths, but 66 or 70 cm would suit most men. (“8 palms” ). If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist? Quote:As to shield decoration, I think it reasonable that a unit such as the ‘Chalkaspides’(Bronze shields) would be alike – and of course it is only the bronze faced type that has survived the vagaries of time. Others, such as the ‘Leukaspides’/White shields may not have had bronze facings at all, and would certainly have required bronze edging ( to avoid weapons splitting them), as we see on ‘scuta’ and the rims of non-bronze faced ‘argive aspides’. I agree, but there was nothing to indicate that all men in the Chalkaspides had the same exact shields - they likely had different decoration and different sizes, with the basic requirement that all men be issued with bronze-faced shields. Quote:Hardly contemporary! Plutarch ‘floreat’ c. 100 AD and Pausanias 75 years later – some 3 generations later, and one might expect that the works of Plutarch would likely have been more accessible than the much older ones, that needed repeated copying to survive….. You know what I mean by contemporary: later Roman. My point was that anyone like Pausanias who was writing about history well before his time would have had access to popular historians through booksellers or even a minor library just as readily as more recent authors. If Plutarch was able to get access to the writings of Polybius and Aratus, which he certainly did, then there's little doubt that Pausanias would have had similar access. Quote:....In fact a cross section of what an 'argive aspis' with its rim cut off would be like.... and it would appear that even thus modified, such a shield is not very practical for sarissa use. As I have stated before, I never doubted that wielding a sarissa with two hands while carrying an Argive shield with a porpax would be at best impractical, and at worst impossible. My argument, in the beginning of the thread as now, is that in some circumstances, the Argive shield could have been employed by phalangites with some minor adjustment as long as a telamon was used to carry it instead of a porpax. This: Quote:Based on the tests I did I don't think that the aspis could have been used with a sarissa even if held by just the antilabe. The reason for this became apparent fro the tests: that steep curve, all most all of which occurrs near the edge is a problem. Even to use an antilabe, you'd either have to secure it to the outer curve right up near the rim or make it so long and loose that maneuvering the shield would be very difficult even hanging from a strap. You could of course chop a section out like a Boeotian shield, but I've not seen evidence of this. Though Connolly did suggest that Thebans did just this to use sarissa-type spears pre-Phillip- not likely. ...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested. And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields?
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
07-01-2010, 10:09 PM
Ruben wrote:
Quote:I see a spectrum of shield sizes, shapes, and features, while you see concrete dichotomies. I certainly don't see a plethora of sizes and shapes, or even designs on the face, as can be seen in the diverse examples from Egypt and Macedonia.Similar size, shape, even face design. Rather I see a cluster of 'Macedonian shields' of a similar size, dictated largely by the length of the forearm ( though modifications such as a slightly off-centre porpax can allow some flexibility) and essentially rimless and designed for use with sarissa. Then there is a cluster of larger shields ( because of the rim), differently shaped, with shoulders and a large offset rim, used with single-handed spears. Have a look at Barcid's new 'argive aspis' on the "Kit" thread, and you'll see why you can't use the latter with a porpax to hold a sarissa ( which we apparently agree on ) One has only to look at any extant example to know immediately which 'type' it is. I don't believe there is any real evidence for an infinitely variable single set of shields running from 62-120 cm diameter, some rimmed, some not, across that whole spectrum, which is what you seem to be proposing. Quote:If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist?We don't know that a shield of 62 cm existed at all - only a carving on an unfinished monument "Approximately life-sized", and even that should more correctly read "circa 62 cm". And the reason most were 66-70 cm ( apart from the physical/archaeological) is that this is roughly the he appropriate size for most forearms, as I have already said. Quote:...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested.Why not do it yourself? I have described such a simple experiment, and also told you what happens ( from my own testing) when carrying a 90 cm shield by strap alone - it is useless, and an encumbrance, and suicidal when an opponent thrusts at the face , for example. That is why, for many years, I have been convinced that Pausanias, writing long after the last sarissaphoroi had gone, was wrong to say 'argive' aspides. Quote:And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields? There are a number of answers to that, including an obvious one, but I will leave it to Paul B. to post.......
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country) "No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton Paul McDonnell-Staff
07-01-2010, 10:18 PM
Quote:If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist? I think I've shown that there is no strict correlation between forearm length and shield diameter because there are ways to make wider shields work for smaller arms by changing the curvature and porpax placement. I have discarded that notion for the aspis some time ago. Quote:As to shield decoration, I think it reasonable that a unit such as the ‘Chalkaspides’(Bronze shields) would be alike – and of course it is only the bronze faced type that has survived the vagaries of time. Others, such as the ‘Leukaspides’/White shields may not have had bronze facings at all, and would certainly have required bronze edging ( to avoid weapons splitting them), as we see on ‘scuta’ and the rims of non-bronze faced ‘argive aspides’. I thought the "white" shields were actually silver. Quote:And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields? I'd bet that they built out the section below the porpax. I could not test this easily, but no need since through the miracle of paint we can show what would happen. If there is any truth to the reliefs at Ephesus, I think they show this. See below: Quote:...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested. See below, no need to test it because we can predict what would happen from my test. You need either a long, loose antilabe, or you have to move it further out along the shoulder. The shoulder section is what ruins the shield for sarissa use. A better idea would be to build out the porpax like the deep pelta and move it right. By the way, I don't doubt that the aspis "could" be used with a sarissa, only that at some point the modifications required rise to the absurd and you might as well build a new shield.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url] A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
07-01-2010, 10:35 PM
Quote:I thought the "white" shields were actually silver. I've never heard that before - there was a regiment of "Silver Shields" (Arguraspides), but they were a separate group. I don't see any reason to doubt that the Leukaspides bore shields painted white. Quote:I'd bet that they built out the section below the porpax. I could not test this easily, but no need since through the miracle of paint we can show what would happen. If there is any truth to the reliefs at Ephesus, I think they show this. See below: Well, the shield on the Pydna monument shows no signs of being built out, and it is just such a deeply-dished shield. Could you point out on the Ephesus reliefs where we see a built-out porpax? Quote:See below, no need to test it because we can predict what would happen from my test. You need either a long, loose antilabe, or you have to move it further out along the shoulder. The shoulder section is what ruins the shield for sarissa use. A better idea would be to build out the porpax like the deep pelta and move it right. By the way, I don't doubt that the aspis "could" be used with a sarissa, only that at some point the modifications required rise to the absurd and you might as well build a new shield. I would like to see both these options tested to see how they function with an actual Argive shield. I hardly think that adding on two leather straps and popping off a porpax is an absurd amount of modification. And, like I showed before, if all it took was adding a telamon and a lengthened loop to modify such a shield, it would still be way easier and cheaper than actually making a new shield.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
07-01-2010, 10:58 PM
Quote:I've never heard that before - there was a regiment of "Silver Shields" (Arguraspides), but they were a separate group. I don't see any reason to doubt that the Leukaspides bore shields painted white. I've read that the "white" helmets of Boeotian cavalry were tinned, I just asumed that the same was true for the Macedonian "white" shields. The color white and silver are often confounded- hence Armes Blanche. Quote:Well, the shield on the Pydna monument shows no signs of being built out, and it is just such a deeply-dished shield. Could you point out on the Ephesus reliefs where we see a built-out porpax? The Pydna shield is not very deep, assuming it has the same profile as the others on that monument. The Ephesus shields are not as deep on the inside as they should be given the outer curve. This could simply be a lazy sculptor or a need to not have too much unsupported stone, but might be more. The porpaxes themselves look odd as well, perhaps extended to match the filled region. By way of loose analogy I present the Kalkhan. Note how similar the fittings are as well. I have read that these shields can be worn on the arm or held in the fist as need be by the way. I think this was the situation with old-style peltasts's shields that have a double strap grip/porpax system.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url] A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
07-01-2010, 11:31 PM
Quote:I've read that the "white" helmets of Boeotian cavalry were tinned, I just asumed that the same was true for the Macedonian "white" shields. The color white and silver are often confounded- hence Armes Blanche. Maybe in more poetic writing it could be, but considering that there was a regiment already called "Silver Shields," I see no reason to take their name as anything other than literal. Quote:The Pydna shield is not very deep, assuming it has the same profile as the others on that monument. The Ephesus shields are not as deep on the inside as they should be given the outer curve. This could simply be a lazy sculptor or a need to not have too much unsupported stone, but might be more. The porpaxes themselves look odd as well, perhaps extended to match the filled region. These shields obviously are not as deep as we might expect because they are carved in relief, and not in the round; the sculptor simply wanted to give the impression of depth. If we do take the Pydna shield shown from the inside to be different than the others, then that opens up a whole other can of worms. Quote:By way of loose analogy I present the Kalkhan. Note how similar the fittings are as well. I have read that these shields can be worn on the arm or held in the fist as need be by the way. I think this was the situation with old-style peltasts's shields that have a double strap grip/porpax system. I've thought about it in the past, and I suspect that the oval peltae depicted on the Kazanluk tomb paintings possess a very similar system (one looser strap at each extremity and a double strap grip in the middle) so that they could have employed like a series of porpakes to allow the bearer to use a rhomphaia with both hands. That shield type and the rhomphaia both appear in Thrace at about the same time (mid-4th c. BC), so it seems like they very well may have been linked.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian 
07-01-2010, 11:42 PM
The Carians of Asia Minor (considered by the Greeks to be progenators of the hoplite's Argive shield) were known to have 'white' shields in the early 5th century B.C. This practice was either copied or coincidentally duplicated by the hoplite-like 'Sacred Band' of the Carthaginian citizen army. I think that these devices in both instances may well have been covered in leather (either dyed or a type of animal whose hide naturally yielded a leather of pale color - like the rhino used on some African shields). Also, the Boeotian cavalry of Epaminondas apparently wore 'white' helmets in the early 4th century B.C., a custom perhaps copied by Philip II, who was familiar with this habit from his hostage stay in Thebes as a teen. In all cases, the practical purpose seems to have been ease of identification amid the confusion of battle; though, at least at Carthage, it must have added flair to an elite image as well.
It\'s only by appreciating accurate accounts of real combat past and present that we can begin to approach the Greek hoplite\'s hard-won awareness of war\'s potential merits and ultimate limitations.
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker") |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| Images for a book on the Macedonian army part 2 | Emki | 2 | 1,732 |
10-26-2011, 11:59 AM Last Post: Emki |
|
| Obtaining images for a book on the Macedonian army | Emki | 3 | 2,055 |
10-05-2011, 04:03 PM Last Post: hoplite14gr |
|
| Spartan Hoplite Impression - was "Athenian Hoplite" | rogue_artist | 30 | 13,816 |
08-17-2008, 12:31 AM Last Post: Giannis K. Hoplite |
|
