Leukaspides: were they Thyreophoroi?

[Caturix]

Hi to all!

I've stumbled upon a curious statement of Nicholas Sekunda about the nature of Leukaspides in the Antigonid army.

Apparently Sekunda in his "Macedonian Armies after Alexander 323-168 BC" is convinced that the Leukaspides weren't actually part of the phalanx like the Chalkaspides, but instead equipped with thureos (and apparently Thracians).

Apart from his analisys, that I don't find totally convincing, there are other references about this matter?

Thank you in advance!

[Macedon]

Not much is written in the sources about these particular leucaspides (as a term it only says that the soldiers were carrying white shields and was used for many troops other than those employed by Antigonus). However, Plutarch writes that Cleomenes armed 2,000 of his troops in the Macedonian manner (sarisa and pelte) to specifically counter the leucaspides of Antigonos (Plutarch's Agis and Cleomenes 44.1.6.). Under that prism I fail to see how the leucaspides of Antigonos were not of "the phalanx". As far as I know that is the only mention of this contingent we have in Greek.

[edit]

I just read Secunda's theory. For me, the main problem is that he tries to support that there was a long lasting leucaspides regiment in the post Alexandrian Macedonian armies, which in itself is not well supported. I also disagree with his theory that at Sellasia, the Whiteshields were the Illyrians and that Cleomenes used his "Macedonian" phalanx as he proposes... However, as I already wrote, the term was used for any type of troops bearing white shields, so as far as I am concerned, in some battle sometime, someplace, they could be archers on camels.

[Caturix]

Apparently Sekunda states that the Leukaspides of which refers Livy (44.41.1-2) at Pydna were Thracians carrying white thyreoi as these were described by Plutarch as being at the battle dressed in black with white sheilds (Plut .Aem. Paulus. 18.2).

Furthermore, Sekunda wrote about a Leukaspides force recruited by Pyrrhus among the Tarentines... I'm quite puzzled -.-

[Macedon]

I looked into some databases and unfortunately found no helpful mentioning of leucaspides in the context in question. In the sources we have various troops bearing white shields, there are even more mentions from times before Alexander. The fact that, among others, Thracians also bore white shields sometimes (but were not called whiteshields themselves) he only uses to further his line of thinking. The same applies to the Tarentine allies of Pyrrhus. You should understand that the term is generic and does not have to do with a specific type of troop. Fortunately there are many more quotes on the chalkaspides, so that we can call them a regiment of the Macedonian phalanx, but the same is just not the case with the leukaspides. So, since evidence is very sparse, there is ripe ground for assumptions and theories. If it was a bet, I would put my money on them being another regiment of the phalanx as far as the leukaspides of Antigonus in Sellasia are concerned.

[Michael J. Taylor]

There is every reason to believe that they simply represented one wing of the main phalanx, and fought as traditional Macedonian phalangites.

[Paralus]

George is correct: the term is not technical and can denote any infantry type carrying 'white' shields. It may well be that the 'chalkaspides' and the 'leukaspides' were the two 'wings' of the full phalanx. As George has written, Kleomenes raised 2,000 phalangites - armed in the Macedonian fashion - to counter Doson's leukaspides. While that doesn't prove that the troops he opposed these to were sarisa-armed, it is near to a certainty in my view. Further, Kleomenes faced something in the order of 8,000 Macedonian phalangites (3,000 'pletasts' and 5,000 others which must have included the leukaspides) on his wing where he stationed his 6,000 sarisa armed.

Interestingly S Nutt, in his thesis, has gone the entirely opposite way arguing that at Selaasia the chalkaspides were thureophoroi (and may not have been elsewhere). His reasoning, if I recall, is that they were formed up with the Illyrian thureophoroi on broken ground - not good for a phalanx. He singularly fails to understand that this was the reason Doson alternated speirai of Illyrians and sarisa-armed chalkaspides. Just as did Pyrrhos in Italy (though he discounts this too).

For the Macedonians of the late third century on, war was increasingly a 'phalanx thing'. The more the better as Raphia demonstrates. There is little doubt, to me, that Perseus' Macedonian infantry at Pydna was sarisa-armed. White or bronze shielded.

[Old Husker]

There is every reason to believe that they simply represented one wing of the main phalanx, and fought as traditional Macedonian phalangites.

Yeah, that's certainly how I would read it too!