The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[PMBardunias]

No luck in finding the Pergamum image I was looking for. Do you have an image of the actual bronze strip, or simply a line drawing from it? Trust me, I wanted that shield to be rimmed more than you do for my own reasons, but if you analyze it, the chances that it is are slim. First, just from the drawing it is clear that there is an obscured portion where that shield bearer's face should be- right above the shield section in question. Second, if the inner edge of the semicircular motiff were truly the limit of the shield on top, then the shield would have to have a faceted surface, which is unlikely. Third, there are 5 shields of the same type on that strip and only one of them would be this special rimmed type.

Also, as to the thureophoroi, I don't think they were adopted because they were in any way superior to sarissaphoroi, or hoplites for that matter in set battle. As mentioned above, social and tactical change is more likely the reason. From the Pergamum strip you can see how thin and spindle-shaped some of these were. There are Thracian shields that predate the adoption of the thureos that are rather close in proportion, see below: In fact, the whole notion of a medium weight infantryman with an oblong, single-center grip shield in a greek context probably goes back to Iphicrates.

In examining a mock-up of a pelta/ochane system, it is clear to me that the porpax is actually much more important than the antilabe in supporting the sarissa with a strap. The wrist does not need support because the forearm is already locked into place and of course does not bend. As noted a page or so ago, weight on the antilabe throws the whole system out of balance. So given a choice between one or the other I'd go with only a porpax, off center if need be. Obviously the antilabe has a function in keeping the arm in the porpax properly as well as helping to rotate the shield in a proper two-grip system, but altering it to allow the wrist to pass through is not worth it if it ruins its primary function as second grip for a later phase when the shield needs to be actively used with the sword. Hoplites are often shown holding objects in their left hands while supporting the shield by porpax alone. The same could have been donw with the sarissa. Because it would have pressed against the rim of the shield, the arm would not easily slip free from the porpax.

You can grip the sarissa with the arm in a porpax if you can rotate the hand away from the inner surface of the shield, see below:

As to Macedonians using a longche in place of a dory. Interesting and perhaps similar to what occured with Roman triarii. We sometimes lose sight of just how big and specialized the late dory was, perhaps because we compare it to the sarissa. Below is one of my favorite images comparing spears. IN this case the "dory" is a cavalry spear, so a couple feet need chopping off, but the form, though a bit exagerated, is probably the same as the late dory. The other spear is about appropriate for a longche, perhaps a little long. Perhaps Macedonians found a shorter, handier spear better suited to their non-sarissaphoroi needs.