The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

"MeinPanzer"wrote:

Hardly, since rigorous testing of all different orientations of modes of suspension have not been carried out.

Well, I think enough have been done over the last 30 years or so to demonstrate the most likely method....and that 'hanging shields' are suicidal. I've no doubt that 30 seconds of mock combat with you so armed would convince you too ! D

And yet, once again, A) pectorals or other such armour almost certainly were not sitting around in armouries or temples for Cleomenes or Philopoemen to make use of, and B) a pectoral would not cover parts of the body, like the shoulder, arm, side of the body, and thigh, as an Argive aspis would. As for them being unsuited to close combat, all I'm referring to is what Polybius is referring to - the "post-sarissa" phase.

There are several assumptions here - why would there not be as many body armours as shields in preserved trophies or stored panoplies? Furthermore, a 'hanging shield' is a positive nuisance, in the way, and an impediment to using one's own arms. Not to mention that 'cutting down' an aspis to allow it to be used with a sarissa would ruin its structural integrity - nor could an intact 'Argive aspis' be used - it is just too big to be used with a two-handed 'sarissa' physically ( you can't get around it).

Uh-Huh !...just as I expected...knew this point was coming ! ... I don't think this is convincing. Firstly, two inscriptions can hardly give us 'termini'.

Actually, it's just one dated inscription, and yes, by the very definition of the term, it gives us a terminus ante quem.

I'm not quibbling about that, and I meant that the inscriptions don't give us two 'termini', as I said. (the real 'terminus post quem' being 279 BC or just after...)

The power of the Galatians lay in their numbers, not in the thureos, which, as the previously quoted passage of Pausanias shows, was considered a poor defence for the Celtic warriors. Early adoption seems logical, but we can't say how early - whether a year later, or a decade later, and there could have been intervening events which moved the Aetolians towards adopting this piece of armour.

The 'poor defence' I think meant that the 'thureos' was the Celt's sole protection - he had no helmet or body armour, hence was vulnerable to missiles, especially the limbs and head outside the shield. The 'thureos' was hardly 'poor protection' compared to the smaller, thinner, flimsier 'pelta'.

Once again, my point was that our only termini ante quem date to about 250, which means that this shield could have been adopted in the 270s, in the 260s, or in the 250s, and this is exactly the time when our understanding of Hellenistic history is haziest. One would expect the Greeks to have adopted the Macedonian phalanx after Chaeronea, and yet it took them almost a century to do so, so there isn't just a direct connection between contact with enemy armour and its adoption. Similarly, Peoples in Asia Minor had sustained contact with Galatians since 278, and they adopted the thureos quite early, but they didn't adopt Celtic sword types until the late third century at the earliest. It's clear that arms were not always immediately adopted upon contact with the enemy.

I have already given reasons I think the adoption was sooner rather than later. As to adopting 'superior' weapon systems ( which may be perceived rather than factual), it may be because the astounded Greeks did not believe that the the Macedonian phalanx was superior to the Doric phalanx after Chaeronea, until after the conquests of Alexander and his 'invincible' army. Shortly after that, the invincible Macedonians were shattered twice by Gallic arms, so unsurprisingly it was these that were imitated. Then it became apparent that thureophoroi could not prevail against 'arms in the Macedonian manner' and we see the gradual adoption of these, until 'Roman arms' prevail - when ultimately the Seleucids and Ptolemies go over to these, though too late. As to absorbing weaponry, the Greeks had the technology to copy the thureos, but it was a quite different matter to learn the superior, and undoubtedly secret, skills of Celtic iron technology - certainly on a mass scale. It would take even the Romans several hundred years of contact with the Celts to absorb their iron technology that produced long quality iron swords ( despite criticism of swords that bent!), mail and beautiful iron helmets - at least on a mass scale.

The Macedonian equipment almost certainly wasn't captured equipment in use among the Galatians, but rather hearkens back to earlier Aetolian resistance against the Macedonians; considering that this coinage was the first issued by the league, it was their propagandistic debut, and they made full use of it to tout their resistance not only against the barbarian Celts in their finest hour, but also against those other barbarians of the north who had so damaged Greece. And Aetolia did possess quantities of thureoi, but they don't seem to have been in use: there were 15,000 panoplies to be found at Thermon in 218 (Polybius 5.8.9), most of them likely dedicated after the repulsion of the Galatians.

Both explanations for the presence of both types of shield on one coin seem likely, though yours may be considered the most probable bearing in mind symbology. Those 15,000 panoplies referred to by by Polybius, along with other 'treasures' were gathered up from all over Aetolia following a surprise invasion by Philip V - there was so much that much of it, much had to be stored in houses surrounding the temple citadel, to be ultimately captured by the Macedonians, who kept the richest/choicest and burnt the rest. I don't think this was even mostly Gallic since it represented ALL trophies/'stored arsenal arms in Aetolia's Temples since time immemorial. Much of it was useless, as shown by it being burnt. Nor does it show that the Gallic equipment/thureoi among the 'panoplies' was not in use, since there was no time to raise Aetolia's troops, only time to gather up the 'treasures/arsenals' and take them to a "safe" place, apparently.

The only example of the round spina and umbo shield that I know of which shows how it was carried is a 3rd c. BC votive miniature from Telamon, which has a miniature porpax attached to the back, and not a single grip (see Sekunda, "The Republican Roman Army, 200-104 BC," 22). Related shields, such as the totally flat, rimless round cavalry shields which came into use in the Hellenistic period, also used porpax and antilabe (as seen on a 2nd c. BC votive relief from Pergamon), and it seems to have been the standard for cavalry shields in the Hellenistic period.

Again, as with the 'Eubolos tombstone', my sixth sense told me you would raise this ! :wink:
The problem I have with these two examples is again the size of the sample ( two) and the fact that they are miniature /model votive items. In the case of the Telamon example, apparently all we have is the drawing. This shows what must be a cast shield with spina and umbo. To this, at some time, has been added a sheet metal item, which may be a hanging loop, or intended to be an oversize, out of scale porpax If the latter, it would be very difficult/uncomfortable to use such a porpax, placed right over the hollow of the 'umbo'; and against this interpretation, why would one add such an item to a cast one-piece votive item unless it was for the practical purpose of 'hanging loop'? The evidence here is at best equivocal, though possible....

Greek artists regularly got small things like depth of field and arm articulation wrong in art, but they have a good track record with depiction weaponry, and this scene shows no signs of misporportioned arms or armour, so there is no reason to doubt the verisimilitude of the shields in this scene (which match those on the Pydna monument in size), both in size and shape. But again, considering that these shields are quite large in diameter and one has a small rim, how would you suggest they managed to hold a sarissa two-handed while carrying them with porpax?

I don't believe 'sarissaphoroi' shields had significant rims, and I think Paul B. is correct that in fact both shields here are the same - depicted rimless. Certainly the shields of the 'Aghios Athanasios' fresco and the 'Aemilius Paullus' frieze show rimless shields of maximum size to be used with 'sarissa', as one might expect...