Makedonian phalanx shield

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes,indeed this valuable silver plate shows two very deep peltes,however the bronze gaces found don't seem to have been that deep,and the sculptures usually show them quite shallow. I agree it's hard to be sure there weren't deep ones,but i don't think the statement that they were generally shallower than the aspis would be incorrect. In fact i think(though i ought to try it muself to say it with certainty) that in order to both have your arm through the porpax and hold a sarissa, and given that the diemeter is smaller, the pelte couldn't be that much deep. But on the other hand,that plate shows differently.
Khaire
Giannis

I would generally agree with this....that our manuals are correct in suggesting that Macedonian peltae should not be too deep. I also think that Connolly and others are right to suggest that the shield was held by porpax and antilabe as well, and that the strap/telamon was more to assist with supporting the weight of the sarissa - this certainly appears to be the experience of those re-enactors ( such as Connolly) who have tried it........this also explains why all extant examples ( as opposed to artistic representations ) are of a diameter less than 75 cm - i.e. forearm length - and why they are rimless. To postulate "large" shields and rims means that an antilabe cannot be used. Having 'mocked up' a shield and a sarissa-like pole, I certainly think that the antilabe was used, and this arrangement is far handier and manageable than either a loose shield hanging from a strap ( useless and gets in the way) or one held by porpax alone...

The fact that the idea of rimmed/large sarissaphroi shields depends on interpretation of one or two artistic pieces is deeply suspicious for mine......(an artistic concentric circle is unconvincing for example, because it may not be intended to be a rim at all)