Macedonian shield

[Et tu brute]

Probably the latter but I'm not sure, I just think It would be a bit of a nightmare to fit out each soldier with a differant sized shield.

[Avatar]

Well, if they used a system like the one below, it might have worked:

Size A: 4-4.5ft
Size B: 4.5-5ft
Size C: 5-5.5ft
Size D: 5.5-6ft

I'm not sure how tall the Greek and Macedons were, so it's all conjecture on my part.

[Hoplitesmores]

this might be useful

[hoplite14gr]

Well if we belive burial remains the 77 % were 5.8 to 5.10 inches.
The remaining could rech Ajax Telamonios size.
Tim though is probably right with the ancient S,M,L interpretation.

Lysias had a factory with 120 people making shields so some form of standarization could be possible.

Kind regards.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

This should link you to a page where Hoplite 14gr posted two pics of mine. The second pic shows a 60cm (about) plough wheel I bought to be used as a forming anvil for the Macedonian shield under discussion. The problem is to get thin brass sheets over 70cm square. Form the shape over the anvil by annealing and hammering, cut the edge into the triangles and the fold over the core, as in the find from Turkey, I think...

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 2&start=20

LYAKON
(Ralph Izard)
otherwhen

[MeinPanzer]

Well most pike points were thin narrow blades and some even conical.
I am still awaiting pics to post of our macedonian shield.
It was the project of a friend who is a metallurgist.
Kind regards

I must say, I'm disappointed that people are so emphatically following the Andronikos interpretation. It saddens me whenever I see a sarissa with a coupling sleeve and a massive head...

The phallanx shield has a diameter of 60 top 70 cm and according to the Asklipiodotos & other sources he proposes 65 cm diameter. It constituted of a wooden core (leather or papyrus intermediary) and copper.

That would probably be bronze, not copper (which would be way too soft).

Her cupreous version was the one that proposes and the Asklipiodotos and means that the cupreous investment was also best did not have cornice hoplite aspis even if it had porpax and handle-if it were also found in use only in the case where sarisa had been rendered useless - and aortiras (leather strap) that it was the means for the shift of shield.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for the telamon being used (and in the two clear representations of phalangites in combat that I know of, neither shows a strap other than a baldric).

It was not very concave hence it did not have big depth in order to make it possible for the use the sarisa with two hands(only with two hands can sarisa be used). The biggest depth contrary to hoplite was 4 cm maximum.

Unfortunately, again, the literary sources say this, but the visual sources show very concave Macedonian shields being in use.

[hoplite14gr]

Ruben

I totaly agree with you on the bronze metal obserbation you made.

If you object on the "thin" pike points, well there are examples in meusums.

But I think you object more on the pike composed of two parts if I understand correct. Why?

Kind regards

[Anonymous]

I thought our colleague was also objecting to the excessive size of the head, relative to the sauroter. If so, I would agree with him as , I think, would you, Stefane. I don't see the objection to the pipe-joint, though.

[MeinPanzer]

If you object on the "thin" pike points, well there are examples in meusums.

No, I agree that the sarissa heads were thin and...

But I think you object more on the pike composed of two parts if I understand correct. Why?

Yes, I completely disagree with the identification of Andronikos that the Vergina components- the large leaf-shaped head, the metal sleeve, and the massive buttspike- are sarissa parts. I, too, used to agree with his assumption, but I recently read an article posted by Nick Sekunda that really persuaded me. He points out a number of things:

1) The Issos mosaic shows one sarissa for more than half its length, and we don't see a coupling sheath. The spearheads on the sarissae in the background are also small and thin, not large.

2) There's a mention in a later Roman source of "the sarissae with their little sharp teeth" or something to that effect. It strongly suggests that the heads were much smaller.

3) If such a long and heavy spear was to be held so close to the bottom of the shaft, it would need to have a heavy buttspike but a light head to keep the end from drooping too much.

He also delves quite deeply into the issues of wood- cornel versus ash- which is quite interesting and looks to 16th C. pikes for comparisons. I don't know if I'm allowed to post it but if you send me a message I should be able to send you it.

[Magnus]

What type of wood is Cornel? A member of the hardwood family I take it? What's it resemble?

[MeinPanzer]

What type of wood is Cornel? A member of the hardwood family I take it? What's it resemble?

I'm sorry, I'm not much of an expert on wood (but Sekunda apparently is)- I just know what I learned from the article. Apparently cornel wood is solid but very heavy. Sekunda quotes a 16(?)th century author who writes about the construction of pikes and who states that in tests of wood strength for pikes, Ash was found to have by far the best ratio of weight to strength (cornel was strong, but too heavy), and so pikes at this time were made of ash. Macedonia was abundant in ash trees, and Sekunda even looks at a 16th C. method for growing perfect spearshafts. Apparently Spain would grow ash trees in very tight proximity to one another so that they would grow up very quickly and would be very straight but with short branches. According to authors from this time period, it only took a year to grow a tree long enough for an ~18 foot pike, and because they used the trunk of the tree, there were not many knots in the wood. Almost all of the Hellenistic kingdoms had royal parks or forests which could have been cultivated carefully in this way (there's even a mention of Cypriote rulers carefully maintaining forests to make timber for shipbuilding). Sekunda notes that during the First (or maybe Second World War, I don't quite remember) Britain's plane-building initiative needed lots of strong and perfectly straight yet light pieces of timber, and ash was the only wood which could provide this, and in lengths of up to 30 feet!

The problem with the coupling sheath is that it is, first of all, too fragile and small to be able to support a full length sarissa in heavy use, and secondly that it would be a lot of work to dis- and reassemble. There are no holes in the sheath where it could be nailed to the shaft, and to re-heat it to secure it to the shaft of the wood would char it and probably be very hard to do.

Subsequently, he thinks that the Andronikos spearhead, spearbutt, and sheath belonged to a ceremonial weapon of Philip (just like much of the other equipment in the tomb), and he provides some evidence to support this.

The clincher for me is the Issus mosaic, which is often simply ignored in debates over the sarissa. It clearly shows small, slender spearheads and no coupling sheath.

[Anonymous]

I believe cornel is wild cherry, called Gean in horticultural circles. I don't know that it's desperately heavy, but ash is probaly the best wood in the world for weight-to-strength ratio. It is also a very flexible wood, which makes it even more resistant to sword cuts than other woods. Someone has noted that cornel trees don't grow very tall and would thus have been poor material for twenty-foot pikes. This would be an argument in favour of the two-part Sarissa, if we accept that it was made of this type of wood, although I wonder whether the trees could be made to grow taller if they were treated in the same way as the ash trees of Spain.

[MeinPanzer]

I believe cornel is wild cherry, called Gean in horticultural circles. I don't know that it's desperately heavy, but ash is probaly the best wood in the world for weight-to-strength ratio. It is also a very flexible wood, which makes it even more resistant to sword cuts than other woods. Someone has noted that cornel trees don't grow very tall and would thus have been poor material for twenty-foot pikes. This would be an argument in favour of the two-part Sarissa, if we accept that it was made of this type of wood, although I wonder whether the trees could be made to grow taller if they were treated in the same way as the ash trees of Spain.

And if you accept that the sarissa was made of ash wood (and again, ash trees were abundant in Macedonia), then even the longest of sarissae can be accommodated.

[hoplite14gr]

Most of the trees in Greece like oak, ash, cypress, pine and other forest trees are usually shorter and smaller than the ones in Central/Northern Europe or US. So the two part sarissa argument has a point.

The only plants that I know are treated to grow taller are vines and roses.
They are attached to a wooden pole to gain height. I do not know thi parctice to be done on trees though.

Kind regards

[Johnny Shumate]

I thought Connolly or someone dismissed the idea of the coupling through experimentation. The weight of the pike head and shaft would pull itself loose...
Johnny