The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paralus]

Then why put the wrist through a loop at all?

I would think that is to keep the shield in line with the arm. Thus the baldric suspends the shield from the neck over the shoulder / arm and the loop about the wrist brings the shield towards the forearm carrying the shield. It is not utilised to support the sarissa which is carried by both arms and not the shield strap.

I actually thought Johnny Schumate rendered this well for the illustration for Gabiene in AW 3.II. The wrist loop may well have been a little looser.

[MeinPanzer]

The pydna warrior is not a sarissaphoroi in my opinion- no ochane in any case.

Good, then we can accept that that shield on the Pydna monument is not a valid piece of evidence when discussing phalangite shields.

Then why put the wrist through a loop at all? You could simply let the shield hang while using the sarissa and then grip it with a central handgrip for close combat- those Urartian bronze shields may have been used this way.

The loop is to help maneuver the shield, while adding a viable handgrip to support an Argive aspis probably would not have been possible to do on a budget (or perhaps not easily at all, but I'm not exactly sure what it would entail).

Also, in the diagram above the porpax is not supporting the shield, it is in fact pushing the shield down now as the arm is made to bear the sarissa's weight. Only the ochane supports the combined weight of arm and sarissa and shield

I think you misunderstood my statement. I simply meant that Plutarch makes clear that rather than use the porpax as the primary method of supporting the shield's weight as the Spartans used to do with the strapless Argive aspis, they removed the porpax and instead used the ochane as the method of supporting its weight.

Because a pectoral is much cheaper and much more comfortable. You may as well just strap the pelta to your chest at that point, then you know it will be covering vital areas when you need it.

But we're talking about Argive shields here, and not peltae - that's the whole point. If they had peltae (Asclepiodotus' Macedonian shield, or similar kinds), they would certainly have used them. But since Argive shields were probably present in good numbers, simply converting them would have been the cheapest option. Their size would have conferred some benefit as well, since such shields would have covered much more than just the torso.

[Old Husker]

With regard to the method of 'articulation' used by Antiochus the Great at Magnesia (190), the clarifying observation that this was not infantry would seem to be at least partially correct. Sekunda's assumption is that there were 11 groups having two elephants apiece that stood between 10 groups of 1,600 pikemen each (filed 32 deep); however, the elephant teams are thought to have also included forces of light infantry (here, Sekunda cites Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army pp. 8, 82, 167), thus prompting my reference not only to spearmen, but to other "more mobile" types of troops as well.

FYI per your query, Craig, the 'articulating' mechanism involved in Sekunda's other 3 examples are: a) Italiote Greek infantry (presumeably hoplites or similar spearmen) between the pike units of Pyrrhus, b) Illyrians (spearmen with theuros shields) between the pike units at Sellasia (222), and c) empty gaps between blocks (speirai) of pikemen at Mantineia (207) to give those blocks improved lateral maneuverability. - Fred

[PMBardunias]

I would think that is to keep the shield in line with the arm. Thus the baldric suspends the shield from the neck over the shoulder / arm and the loop about the wrist brings the shield towards the forearm carrying the shield. It is not utilised to support the sarissa which is carried by both arms and not the shield strap.

Lets be clear, there are three possibilities: 1) the ochane supports the arm holding the sarissa as Connelly suggests, 2) the ochane is simply holds the pelta when not being used actively, 3) ochane bears the weight of the shield, but it is tied to the left wrist/forearm to allow it to be moved around to a limited extent.

1) allows for limited range of motion of the left arm, but supports extended use of the sarissa. 2) allows complete freedom of movement for the arms, but then requires the shield to be taken up before sword fighting. The fellow on the left of Johnny's painting has simply slung the shield over his shoulder like this. If the shield must be taken up anew, there is not reason to pass the wrist through the antilabe rather than simply grip it because you no longer have a sarissa to hold. You are simply holding it like an old style aspis at this point. I have no problem with the notion of simply having the pelta slung for later use, except it does not conform to the notion that the shields were brought forward for battle. 3) This is the worst of both worlds. You have a limited range of motion before you start to choke yourself with the ochane- as Johnny's central figure shows. Also, attemtping to move the shield around from just a wrist strap at the edge is very difficult and the strap actually makes this worse. For example, if you raise the shield and the ochane shortens in front, you may then have a problem lowering your arm again! Trust me, you have to try this. Just take a 60cm stick and a rope and you can see the problems with how the strap acts. Since as you move the shield, the strap is not helping to support it all that much, and a 60cm pelta is not all that heavy, you'd be better off simply strapping it to your forearm and forgetting the strap entirely. Did Cretan archers wear their shields in this manner? I have seen that often in depictions, but I don't know if it is accurate.

Good, then we can accept that that shield on the Pydna monument is not a valid piece of evidence when discussing phalangite shields.

I never said it was. I brought it up because you suggested that a shield of this type was "modified" for use with sarissa. Clearly there is no way that man's wrist can go through the antilabe without his elbow also going through the porpax like one of those bizarre Russian shield-gauntlets.

The loop is to help maneuver the shield, while adding a viable handgrip to support an Argive aspis probably would not have been possible to do on a budget (or perhaps not easily at all, but I'm not exactly sure what it would entail).

Replacing the porpax with a piece of wood and 4 nails or two straps that are brought together in the middle to form a grip is about as cheap as it gets. You'd make money on the sale of the bronze from your old porpax! But probably cultural influence caused the double grip to be maintained.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I simply meant that Plutarch makes clear that rather than use the porpax as the primary method of supporting the shield's weight as the Spartans used to do with the strapless Argive aspis, they removed the porpax and instead used the ochane as the method of supporting its weight.

I understood you, I just don't see anything in that statement that implies the porpax was removed, simply that the onus is now on the ochane to support the shield.

But we're talking about Argive shields here, and not peltae - that's the whole point. If they had peltae (Asclepiodotus' Macedonian shield, or similar kinds), they would certainly have used them. But since Argive shields were probably present in good numbers, simply converting them would have been the cheapest option. Their size would have conferred some benefit as well, since such shields would have covered much more than just the torso.

The discussion seemed to have broadened to Macedonian shields as well, but once again, chopping down an aspis or simply remaking the core and scavanging the bronze face probably takes not much more time and surely less cost than coming up with many thousands of sarissas. The Spartans had ample time and resources (wood and helot labor, since you already have more bronze than you need) to make proper peltae in this instance.

[Paralus]

I would think that is to keep the shield in line with the arm. Thus the baldric suspends the shield from the neck over the shoulder / arm and the loop about the wrist brings the shield towards the forearm carrying the shield. It is not utilised to support the sarissa which is carried by both arms and not the shield strap.

Lets be clear, there are three possibilities: 1) the ochane supports the arm holding the sarissa as Connelly suggests, 2) the ochane is simply holds the pelta when not being used actively, 3) ochane bears the weight of the shield, but it is tied to the left wrist/forearm to allow it to be moved around to a limited extent.

1) allows for limited range of motion of the left arm, but supports extended use of the sarissa. 2) allows complete freedom of movement for the arms, but then requires the shield to be taken up before sword fighting. The fellow on the left of Johnny's painting has simply slung the shield over his shoulder like this. If the shield must be taken up anew, there is not reason to pass the wrist through the antilabe rather than simply grip it because you no longer have a sarissa to hold. You are simply holding it like an old style aspis at this point. I have no problem with the notion of simply having the pelta slung for later use, except it does not conform to the notion that the shields were brought forward for battle. 3) This is the worst of both worlds. You have a limited range of motion before you start to choke yourself with the ochane- as Johnny's central figure shows.

One needs to imagine the central figure without his arm through the porpax: the shield is pulled around front by the left wrist and the baldric holds it from falling forward out of the vertical. The fellow to the left has broken that wrist strap.

With regard to the method of 'articulation' used by Antiochus the Great at Magnesia (190), the clarifying observation that this was not infantry would seem to be at least partially correct. Sekunda's assumption is that there were 11 groups having two elephants apiece that stood between 10 groups of 1,600 pikemen each (filed 32 deep); however, the elephant teams are thought to have also included forces of light infantry (here, Sekunda cites Bar-Kochva's Seleucid Army pp. 8, 82, 167), thus prompting my reference not only to spearmen, but to other "more mobile" types of troops as well.

That might have been so but it is nowhere mentioned. In general the elephants took position in the foreground and the light infantry between. Here we only have the mention of two elephants between each phalange and one would need to make further room for surrounding light infantry. Whilst it is not impossible that lights occupied the spaces they'd be behind the pachyderms. That Appian describes the Phalanx as "opening" and then "closing" again for the retirement of the light armed skirmishing in front might indicate that they were with the elephants as the latter are back inside the phalanx as it retires under fire. This is not to say they were not already arrayed before the phalanx though, that too, is not mentioned.

[MeinPanzer]

Lets be clear, there are three possibilities: 1) the ochane supports the arm holding the sarissa as Connelly suggests, 2) the ochane is simply holds the pelta when not being used actively, 3) ochane bears the weight of the shield, but it is tied to the left wrist/forearm to allow it to be moved around to a limited extent.

1) allows for limited range of motion of the left arm, but supports extended use of the sarissa. 2) allows complete freedom of movement for the arms, but then requires the shield to be taken up before sword fighting. The fellow on the left of Johnny's painting has simply slung the shield over his shoulder like this. If the shield must be taken up anew, there is not reason to pass the wrist through the antilabe rather than simply grip it because you no longer have a sarissa to hold. You are simply holding it like an old style aspis at this point. I have no problem with the notion of simply having the pelta slung for later use, except it does not conform to the notion that the shields were brought forward for battle. 3) This is the worst of both worlds. You have a limited range of motion before you start to choke yourself with the ochane- as Johnny's central figure shows. Also, attemtping to move the shield around from just a wrist strap at the edge is very difficult and the strap actually makes this worse.

For example, if you raise the shield and the ochane shortens in front, you may then have a problem lowering your arm again! Trust me, you have to try this. Just take a 60cm stick and a rope and you can see the problems with how the strap acts. Since as you move the shield, the strap is not helping to support it all that much, and a 60cm pelta is not all that heavy, you'd be better off simply strapping it to your forearm and forgetting the strap entirely.

Firstly, how much range of motion of the slung-forward shield would have been necessary with any orientation of grips, porpakes, or straps when just using the sarissa? Not much, I think. But regardless of how the phalangite's shield was wielded, if it was employed with a telamon and the left arm was attached to it in any manner, the soldier will have limited movement because the strap will only allow so much slack, so that even with the porpax in use, like in Johnny's illustration, as you point out, it would choke the bearer. But, again, I am discussing Argive shields in use as a stop-gap measure, not peltae.

Did Cretan archers wear their shields in this manner? I have seen that often in depictions, but I don't know if it is accurate.

The stele of Thersagoras from Demetrias which shows a Cretan archer with a shield slung across his back unfortunately has not preserved any detail which could have illuminated the mode of suspension. The only other piece of evidence which could help in this matter, the stele of a Mysian thureophoros which shows the deceased departing for war with a thureos on his back, preserves no such detail either.

I never said it was. I brought it up because you suggested that a shield of this type was "modified" for use with sarissa. Clearly there is no way that man's wrist can go through the antilabe without his elbow also going through the porpax like one of those bizarre Russian shield-gauntlets.

That wasn't directed at you, but just so that we can dismiss it from this discussion (since it always seems to come up, anyway, one way or another).

Replacing the porpax with a piece of wood and 4 nails or two straps that are brought together in the middle to form a grip is about as cheap as it gets. You'd make money on the sale of the bronze from your old porpax! But probably cultural influence caused the double grip to be maintained.

I understood you, I just don't see anything in that statement that implies the porpax was removed, simply that the onus is now on the ochane to support the shield.

There are two options: either they didn't remove their porpakes, and went into battle being inconvenienced by them but not making use of them, or they did and thus were better able to make use of the inner curvature of the shield to defend themselves. The latter seems more likely to me.

The discussion seemed to have broadened to Macedonian shields as well, but once again, chopping down an aspis or simply remaking the core and scavanging the bronze face probably takes not much more time and surely less cost than coming up with many thousands of sarissas. The Spartans had ample time and resources (wood and helot labor, since you already have more bronze than you need) to make proper peltae in this instance.

Sarissae have nothing to do with the discussion, though. Sarissae were necessary to equip a Macedonian phalanx; there was no way a general could skimp on them. If Cleomenes had to equip his newly-enfranchised Spartiates on a budget (and the Spartan kings were always operating on a budget in the Hellenistic period), he had to pay for sarissae, but he didn't necessarily have to pay for peltae, whether new or carved out of old aspides. Equipping a Macedonian phalanx was always going to be expensive in the Hellenistic period, between the manpower, the armament, and the training, which is why so many minor states never fielded one. If, however, some skimping could be made in order to cut back on the initial cost of creating one, then the king would be all the more likely to get his reforms off the ground (and the importance of expediency in such matters was clear from the failure of Agis IV's reforms). Cleomenes III did not have ample resources, which is one of the reasons why it was felt that this reform was so necessary (in order to boost Sparta's military strength without the king having to resort to campaigning to muster money to hire mercenaries), and it's not like bronze could have easily been reworked. That all required time, money, and dozens, if not hundreds, of skilled smiths. It would have been much easier simply to pop off the porpakes (or keep them, but I find that less likely), and modify the shields by attaching simple telamones and lengthened antilabae. After all, leather was cheap and plentiful.

[Paralus]

Firstly, how much range of motion of the slung-forward shield would have been necessary with any orientation of grips, porpakes, or straps when just using the sarissa? Not much, I think.

Absolutely. Up, down with and forward, back with a sarisa. The telamon, baldric or whatever supported the shield and the wrist strap / antilabe "drew" the shield. The length of the strap will have been something of a personal matter I imagine.

Equipping a Macedonian phalanx was always going to be expensive in the Hellenistic period, between the manpower, the armament, and the training, which is why so many minor states never fielded one. If, however, some skimping could be made in order to cut back on the initial cost of creating one, then the king would be all the more likely to get his reforms off the ground (and the importance of expediency in such matters was clear from the failure of Agis IV's reforms). Cleomenes III did not have ample resources, which is one of the reasons why it was felt that this reform was so necessary (in order to boost Sparta's military strength without the king having to resort to campaigning to muster money to hire mercenaries), and it's not like bronze could have easily been reworked. That all required time, money, and dozens, if not hundreds, of skilled smiths. It would have been much easier simply to pop off the porpakes (or keep them, but I find that less likely), and modify the shields by attaching simple telamones and lengthened antilabae. After all, leather was cheap and plentiful.

Uniformity is all: the pikes definitely will have been made and to a "template". If it were important that the pikes were uniform the shields will have been - in the ideal world - as well. Hence I see no reason why Kleomenes - already paying for mercenaries and in a hurry - would not have made use of those shields available. There is little, that I'm aware of, to suggest that conservative Sparta had overthrown the hoplite mentality and it is therefore likely that those available shields will have been aspides. I'd think this even more a necessity for the 2,000 helots to whom he sold citizenship and membership of the phalanx.

[PMBardunias]

Firstly, how much range of motion of the slung-forward shield would have been necessary with any orientation of grips, porpakes, or straps when just using the sarissa? Not much, I think. But regardless of how the phalangite's shield was wielded, if it was employed with a telamon and the left arm was attached to it in any manner, the soldier will have limited movement because the strap will only allow so much slack, so that even with the porpax in use, like in Johnny's illustration, as you point out, it would choke the bearer. But, again, I am discussing Argive shields in use as a stop-gap measure, not peltae.

This is a bear of a thread because there is so much being discussed at once that we keep crossing logic streams. My worry about mobility was for after the sarissa is lost. With a shield held solely by Telamon/Ochane (are they interchangable?) you can wield the sarissa as long as you don't use the strap to support the arm or move very much in the vertical plane. Once you have lost your sarissa, the sheild becomes useless and in fact a hinderence because of the way the strap will slip back and forth over your shoulde and bind up at all the wrong times if you try to move the shield any more than a horizontal sawing motion. Even lifting the left arm in order to deploy the sarissa could cause the strap to shorten on the front end, but at least here you would have time to jostle it back into position.

My point is that I don't think, even as a stop-gap, a shield that could not be used once the sarissa was lost/useless would be acceptable. One major force in warfare is making men feel protected, even when they are not. This would be a big morale problem. As I said, it is a worthy idea, but I think in the end the mechanics are against it. No shame here. I've been there many times myself :wink:

... thus were better able to make use of the inner curvature of the shield to defend themselves.

That's where you lose me. I'm not sure what you are envisioning here. If the elbow is to the right of the porpax, then you can do anything with the shield that you could do if it were not there. The only way it would be a problem is if you were somehow attempting to actually roll your back into the shield or if you extended your arm straight out it might hit your tricep. You can stand with your whole body in the shield as long as the porpax is to the left of the elbow.

It would have been much easier simply to pop off the porpakes (or keep them, but I find that less likely), and modify the shields by attaching simple telamones and lengthened antilabae. After all, leather was cheap and plentiful.

I think you overestimate the cost of making more suitable wooden shields and simply cutting the bronze to fit, but on that point we can simply disagree. In any case, the measure would have been unneeded after his invasion of Megalopololitan territory (Plut. Cleom. 12.2). You can build a lot of peltae for the cost of one Messenian theatre.

[MeinPanzer]

My point is that I don't think, even as a stop-gap, a shield that could not be used once the sarissa was lost/useless would be acceptable. One major force in warfare is making men feel protected, even when they are not. This would be a big morale problem. As I said, it is a worthy idea, but I think in the end the mechanics are against it. No shame here. I've been there many times myself :wink:

I still think some explanation needs to be made for the statements that Cleomenes taught his men to use ochane instead of porpax (ochane and telamon are interchangeable - I'm pretty sure Plutarch calls the straps in use at Pydna telamones) and that Philopoemen equipped his men with Argive shields. This just seems to me like the most likely answer.

That's where you lose me. I'm not sure what you are envisioning here. If the elbow is to the right of the porpax, then you can do anything with the shield that you could do if it were not there. The only way it would be a problem is if you were somehow attempting to actually roll your back into the shield or if you extended your arm straight out it might hit your tricep. You can stand with your whole body in the shield as long as the porpax is to the left of the elbow.

This would obviously have to be tested, but I was thinking that the porpax would jut into the phalangite's side while maneuvering with the sarissa when the shield moved up or down.

I think you overestimate the cost of making more suitable wooden shields and simply cutting the bronze to fit, but on that point we can simply disagree. In any case, the measure would have been unneeded after his invasion of Megalopololitan territory (Plut. Cleom. 12.2). You can build a lot of peltae for the cost of one Messenian theatre.

For a few hundred men, the cost might not have been too much, but when it reaches the thousands, the increase in cost would have been significant. One of the only solid sources we have for the price of contemporary arms and armour comes from a 3rd c. BC inscription discovered on Keos which lists modest prizes provided to victors in athletic contests (IG XII, 5, 647). A bow costs 7 dr, a quiver 8 dr, a longche (whether spearhead or entire spear) 3 and a third obols, a kontos 2 dr, a helmet 7 dr, and a shield 20 dr. If the kontos is a weapon (as it seems from its association with these other pieces of equipment), then it would suggest that a long shafted weapon was not nearly comparable in price to a shield. Based on our knowledge of the price of arms, it would have cost roughly 10 dr to equip a man with helmet and spear, but double that to add a shield, so if they could be provided for cheaply by only spending money on a few leather straps and some nails, it would have been much more economical.

But just as Cleomenes undoubtedly equipped his phalanx better after the reform got off the ground, it should be noted as well that regardless of the arms in use soon after Philopoemen's reform, within about 20 years they were equipped with top-of-the-line equipment by Ptolemy V, who sent 6,000 "peltasts' panoplies" to the Achaean league.

[Old Husker]

At risk of further confusing what has become a rather lengthy and diverse thread, I'd like to return (at least for a bit) to the 'rebooting' discussion that Paullus Scipio/Michael tried to start up back on June 17 (a galliant effort, that!). He there gives us a very good review of the pre-Philip II army of Macedonia. There's not too much I can add to his very apt comments, though a couple of points might be worth mentioning in light of what would later develop under Philip. The first is that the earlier Macedonian infantry probably included, in addition to traditional peltasts, some small number of troops with longer, thrusting spears. This is based on similar spearmen being present with the surrounding Thracian tribes (see Best's Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare). The other point is that the spearmen employed unsuccessfully by Arrhabaeus against Brasidas in 323 are described by Thucydides as being "Lyncestian hoplites" (4.121.3), thus suggesting that they were native Upper Macedonians. While we can't completely rule out his use of 'Lyncestian' as a generalized term, Thucydides seems elsewhere to be quite specific in noting the presence of mercenaries, including his comment in the very next sentence following (1.24.4) where he describes the approach of "Illyrian mercenaries." This leads me to think that it's at least somewhat more likely that the historian actually meant just what he wrote and that these 'Lyncestian' hoplites were spear/aspis- armed locals. Such a suppositon is important in that Arrhabaeus was a maternal ancestor of Philip II and both his experiment with providing skirmishers with heavy arms and the causes for its failure might have had a significant influence on Philip's own military reforms some 65 years later.

In the winter of 359/358, Philip had just come off of a small, but throne-saving victory over a force of Athenian-backed mercenaries under the pretender Argaios in which he had had to settle for a negotiated solution post-battle due to the inability of his much more numerous but lightly armed infantry being unable to overcome hoplites holding a defensive position. This must have added to his knowledge gained about Greek warfare during a hostage stay in Thebes (where he became familiar with the phalanx tactics of Epaminondas) as well an appreciation of the reforms of Iphicrates, that Greek military innovator being Philip's adopted brother. Iphicrates had earlier increased the size of a mercenary battle formation for use in Egypt by arming skirmishers with a pike and small shield that they might make up one wing of his phalanx. Combining all this, Philip created a phalanx of his own, most probably with hoplites (local and mercenary, probably built upon a small bodyguard that he already had on hand) on one wing and pike-armed 'phalangites' (again, likely both local and mercenary) on the other. To this he was able to add lance-armed shock cavalry off his flanks, presumeably supporting these last with a porton of his remaining light infantry that he reformed to provide a coherent and better-trained screening force.

In all this, the horsemen were pure Macedonian, while Philip's brother Iphicrates seems to have provided the core idea for equipping the phalangites and Epaminondas was the source of the key tactics. These last included the concept of using hoplites on an 'offensive' wing (the left for Epaminondas and the right for Philip II) to carry the field while the center and other wing played defense, keeping the enemy at bay. Epaminondas did the latter rather awkwardly by 'refusing' those portions of his phalanx, while Philip's method more effectively used the long pikes of his phalangites to avoid 'shield-on-shield' contact until the offensive 'shock' troops could win the day in conjunction with the heavy 'shock' cavalry to which they were linked.

The foregoing is very 'quick and dirty', designed only to get some ideas out there for discussion rather than argue them in detail. The two most vital areas of contention are (a) the hoplite/hypaspists argument that has raged on this thread for some time (obviously, I believe here that the weight of the argument from all data sources, including the context of Philip's background in Thebes and with Iphicrates, favors the idea that hypaspists in Philip's day were essentially traditional hoplites where pitched battle was concerned) and (b) the 'defensive' nature of the phalangite. Since (b) has not been extensively discussed in this thread, I'll throw out a few ideas on that subject to get things started.

The problem with seeing the pike/sarissa an offensive weapon equal or superior to the spear/dory is that it projected much less kinetic energy into its target. This was a result of both the number of weapon strikes a pike-phalanx could make over a given period of time as well as the force that those strikes imparted. Hoplites facing a phalangite array would have had to stop at the reach limit of the front-rank sarissai. At that point, compared to what they had to absorb from dory-armed foes, they would have received only 75% as many strikes from the phalangies. This is based on the phalangites being ranked at about 2/3 the spacing of the hoplites, but being able to employ only the front rank versus at least two ranks of strikers available to traditional spearmen. As for the strength of those blows, measurements by Gabriel and Metz (1991: From Sumer to Rome. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, adapted by Schwartz in his 2009 Reinstating the Hoplite, p. 80) show that in being restricted to an underhand thrust they would have been much less powerful than those of a dory wielded overhand. In fact, a spear used underhand, as required of the pike, generates only 18.75% the force of an overhand blow at 18 Nm (Newton-meters) versus 96 Nm. (Note that these numbers are for spears only, and the sarissa would have had a greater mass, however, it would have been jabbed with less velocity, and since imparted energy only goes up as a single multiple of mass versus as a square of velocity, spear force cited here probably overstates the force of an equivalent sarissa strike.) Thus, with fewer and less forceful strikes, a phalanx of phalangites could impart perhaps well less than a fifth the offensive force of weaponery that a dory-armed phalanx could bring to bear. And this doesn't even contemplate the phalangites' inability to apply the sort of othismos available to an aspis equipped array. Yet perhaps even more limiting than the relatively lesser strength of a pike-armed attack, there is the problem of where that strength can be directed. Thrusting on low, it would have been very difficult, if not entirely impossible, to direct a strike at the most vulnerable areas of a hoplite opponent - those exposed above or just below the top rim of his aspis. In the words of Gabriel and Boose (1994: The Great Battles of Antiquity, p. 21): "Unless the soldier was fortunate to land a blow directly to the face, under the chin, or in the space between the neck and chest armor, the spear was not likely to be a terribly lethal weapon in phalanx combat, at least as long as one's opponent stood his ground."

Add to all the foregoing the relative lesser mobility and flexibility of a man burdened with a sarissa (even compared to a hoplite who was not very agile himself) and what you get is quite a weak offensive formation against a standard Doric/Greek phalanx. However, it's a very different story when it comes to defense. Indeed, unless he could cut through the intevening layers of pike points (something that got harder and harder to do over time as the sarissa grew in length from 12' to over 20'), then a hoplite couldn't apply any offense himself. In essence, even in Philip's time, pikemen could largely avoid shield-on-shield contact with an enemy front, creating the same sort of 'refusal' dynamic as Epaminondas had employed, only without the difficult-to-apply process of avoiding contact with the enemy all-together (something that failed the Theban fatally at Mantinea in 362; significantly, just a few years before Philip's reforms). Therefore, all-in-all, I feel that the bulk of argument falls on the side of the pike array being a primarily defensive formation dependent on a linked strike arm of elite hoplites and heavy horsemen to project offense onto the enemy along a selected sector of the battle front.

OK, that's it in very, very short form. Hopefully, we can bolster, poke holes in some, or completely destroy all of the foregoing concepts in the days ahead! - Fred

[PMBardunias]

This would obviously have to be tested, but I was thinking that the porpax would jut into the phalangite's side while maneuvering with the sarissa when the shield moved up or down.

I agree, I cannot rule out it being a problem in a full range of motion. There are some postures that will result in a porpax the short ribs, I don'y know how common they would be though.

Keos which lists modest prizes provided to victors in athletic contests (IG XII, 5, 647). A bow costs 7 dr, a quiver 8 dr, a longche (whether spearhead or entire spear) 3 and a third obols, a kontos 2 dr, a helmet 7 dr, and a shield 20 dr.

This is why I enjoy our discussions, you bring in these great sources. I stand corrected as to the relative cost of a shield.

But just as Cleomenes undoubtedly equipped his phalanx better after the reform got off the ground, it should be noted as well that regardless of the arms in use soon after Philopoemen's reform, within about 20 years they were equipped with top-of-the-line equipment by Ptolemy V, who sent 6,000 "peltasts' panoplies" to the Achaean league.

I was thinking of Ptolemy's donation, but I can't decide which way to interpret it. On the one hand it speaks to the cost of a pelta, but on the other it may show that the whole panoply must be adopted together in a package and if you want to field sarissaphoroi you have to go all the way. In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

[MeinPanzer]

This is why I enjoy our discussions, you bring in these great sources. I stand corrected as to the relative cost of a shield.

The whole inscription is neat in part because it gives a glimpse of the involvement of arms in a minor festival. The winning archer receives, naturally, a bow and quiver; the winning akontistes, three longchai and a helmet; the winning catapult operator, a helmet and a kontos; the winner of the torch race, a shield.

I was thinking of Ptolemy's donation, but I can't decide which way to interpret it. On the one hand it speaks to the cost of a pelta, but on the other it may show that the whole panoply must be adopted together in a package and if you want to field sarissaphoroi you have to go all the way. In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

I don't think it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing, as there was certainly nothing stopping men with only helmet, shield, and sarissa operating in the phalanx with more heavily armoured men. I think it's just a friendly gesture, ensuring that future phalangites could be equipped with a full panoply - no need for the archons of the league to scrounge around, or to force their men to provide their own cuirasses, for instance. It's certainly not unusual for kings in their benefaction to go above and beyond the request or expectation of the receiving party. For instance, an inscription of around 270 BC records letters sent and received between the city of Cyme and Philetairus, dynast of Pergamum, in which the populace request a number of peltae to arm the populace, and Philetairus contributes hundreds more than requested from his own workshops with which to arm the different tribes.

[Paullus Scipio]

I am surprised to see it being suggested that shields simply ‘hung’ from their neckstrap/telamones. This suggestion was largely discredited more than 35 years ago by Charles S. Grant among others, and Connolly and other re-enactors since. An old ‘canard’ that is as lame now as it was then ! To begin with, any shield unsupported by hand/arm will be driven in by the first serious blow it receives. Secondly, even a smallish 60- 70 cm shield is a severe encumbrance dangling thus – and anyone who has tried it can tell you that it is impractical to fight in this way. Any shield must be moved to parry – see any practical arms manual from any era. A soldier in combat unable to move his shield is a dead soldier – effectively shieldless.

All that these reenactors have shown with their limited tests is that some types of shield - Asclepiodotus' Macedonian shield - could be effectively employed with porpax. Well, that has been amply demonstarted....and that a 'hanging' shield is worse than useless..
Once again, the purpose would not have been to deflect serious blows, nor to parry - they were probably just intended to be used as defense against missile weapons for those not in the front ranks. We hear about how phalangites were unsuited to fighting in close combat, and so it was perhaps thought to be worth it to arm a number of men with shields which conferred some defensive benefit, if not when it comes to close combat, in order to fill out the ranks.
This is very much surmise - and has been pointed out , better performed by a simple strapped on 'cardiophylax' as used from the Middle East to far Spain at different times.... as to close combat, that was the 'raison d'etre' for the phalanx, but what you say "unsuited etc" was said by Polybius, discussing what happened once 'hand-to-hand' combat occurred with swords/secondary weapons

The tomb of Eubolos, dated 275-250 BC ( see e.g. the Cambridge History of Warfare) – but I’m sure you expected me to say that! For further details see Feyel (Polybe et l'histoire de la Beotie) which discusses Boiotian inscriptions that describe young citizens being recruited into the thureophoroi - dating from about the 270s to 240s

The stele of Eubolos is dated to between 275 and 250 because it features thureoi and it is known that the first years the thureos could have been in use was the mid-270s, while it was no longer in use after 245 - so this does not provide any evidence for the date when the thureos came into use per se.
Uh-Huh !...just as I expected...knew this point was coming !
Instead, we must rely on the two military catalogues which mention thureaphoroi, IG VII, 2716 and SEG 3, 351. On the latter the preamble listing the archons in office has been lost, and so it cannot be dated with precision beyond "pre-245;" the former, however, preserves the name of the federal archon Dorkylos, which means that it can be dated between 250 and 245. Therefore, the terminus ante quem for the adoption of the thureos in Boeotia is 250: almost exactly the same as for the Achaean and Aetolian leagues.
I don't think this is convincing. Firstly, two inscriptions can hardly give us 'termini'. Second, I don't believe it would be logical for the Greeks to wait until 30 years after the Gallic invasions, before adopting the 'thureos'. The situation was that mighty Macedonia's hitherto invincible army had been all but wiped out in two overwhelming defeats at the hands of the Gauls, who had then proceeded to loot/destroy Macedonia, including its tombs. The Gauls then came south, but retired in the end, harried by Aetolian 'peltasts/psiloi'. The perhaps obvious 'wonder weapon' that defeated Macedon may well have been viewed as the 'thureos', and at all events, having captured thousands, the Aetolian adoption of it would have been the first, very soon after, rather than 30 years later! Similarly, we know the Boeotians switched to the 'Macedonian manner' around 245 BC, as you have referred to, and it does not seem likely they would have done this within 5 years of changing to 'Thureophoroi' ( if one assumes 250 BC) Furthermore, Aetolian coins appear showing the Hero Aetolus sitting on piles of captured 'thureoi' and Macedonian shields and dated 279-260 BC - mind you this depiction is still used in 220-218 BC. These are probably intended to be trophies captured from the Gauls ( who would likely have used captured Macedonian equipment) - showing that Aetolia possessed quantities of 'Thureoi' from 279 BC.

I think you misunderstand, of have maybe misread my post – I refer to both the the single-rib/single hand grip Italo-Gallic type, and the Greek type with porpax and antilabe. I was not suggesting ‘aspis’ types were single grip.

If I understood you correctly, and you were referring to the round cavalry shield furnished with a spina like the thureos, then I was challenging the fact that they are single grip, as you assert, and not equipped with a porpax. What evidence do you use to support this?
The handle on all known 'spina/umbo shields' is single-grip, seemingly turned 90 degrees on cavalry shields ( e.g. Aemilius Paullus frieze and Roman coinage) Shouldn't the emphasis here be on you to support the idea that these had porpaxes?

I don’t believe there is any convincing evidence for such a premise – cutting down the rim would compromise the structure and rigidity of the shield, and render it useless, I suspect that experimentally, small rims might have been added to ‘Macedonian’ shields is possible – the rim deflects a weapon sliding over the domed surface, so that it doesn’t come straight over the edge of the shield, a disadvantage of the rimless shield compared to the ‘Argive’ type.

So, in your view, how would the phalangite on the Pergamon battle plate with the domed shield with small rim be able to wield the sarissa with a porpax?
Assuming this depiction to be correct ( and its accuracy id dubious in several respects - see the shield overthe supposed sarissa for instance - notice that both shields are held away from the body and therefore must be on a porpax, not held by strap alone.

It should be pointed out that it is more likely the shields in the Lyson and Kallikles tomb are quite possibly cavalry shields. The high-waisted armour depicted certainly is a cavalry cuirass c.f. Alexander mosaic, the Roman bronze of Alexander in the BM, and the Pelinna relief from Thessaly ( the latter two illustrated on pp5 and 8 of Sekunda’s “The Army of Alexander the Great”). I referred to the potential for confusion following the introduction of cavalry shields earlier e.g. the larger ‘Macedonian’ shields are now believed to be cavalry shields.( sorry, can’t find the ref at the moment)

Certainly you do not think that the shield decorated "in the Macedonian manner" is a cavalry shield? In our fairly plentiful evidence from all over the Hellenistic world, we never see such shields in use among cavalry, only ever infantry. The single exception is a cavalrymen on a belt plaque from Basse Selce in Albania, but he is clearly an Illyrian cavalryman, as he wears an Illyrian helmet.

The panoplies don't necessarily relate to the single arms shown in the paintings, but simply seem to be generic trophies, since if they did each individual would possess two helmets.
It is possible that both cavalry and infantry equipment is depicted of course - consider both found in the 'Philip' and other tombs, and of course wealthy aristocrats could and probably did possess more than one helmet c.f. for example Italian tombs showing multiple 'panoplia'

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

Good, then we can accept that that shield on the Pydna monument is not a valid piece of evidence when discussing phalangite shields.

...Not so fast ! You seem awfully quick to dismiss one of the few pieces of evidence regarding the macedonian shield ! The man is clearly a Macedonian Heavy armoured infantryman, is he not ? He is not a dismounted cavalryman for these bore different, larger shields with spina/umbo, as other parts of the frieze show.
IIRC all the heavy Macedonian infantry at Pydna were sarissaphoroi, so this man is almost certainly one such fighting without sarissa following the break-up of the phalanx. It therefore most assuredly is a valid piece of evidence ! D wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

Fred wrote:-

The first is that the earlier Macedonian infantry probably included, in addition to traditional peltasts, some small number of troops with longer, thrusting spears. This is based on similar spearmen being present with the surrounding Thracian tribes (see Best's Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare).

This all stems from a single fragment preserving an incident where Philip, IIRC. pursuing some Thracians is wounded in the leg by a Thracian (Triballi from memory?) and is wounded in the leg by a sarissa . We can't be sure that originally 'sarissa' meant anything more than 'long spear' until the Macedonian reforms. One cannot suppose that Macedonians too were so armed until the reforms, which may have lengthened existing 'longish' spears.....we can't even determine exactly the length of a Macedonian sarissa, let alone any predecessor from which it was derived ....

The other point is that the spearmen employed unsuccessfully by Arrhabaeus against Brasidas in 323 are described by Thucydides as being "Lyncestian hoplites" (4.121.3), thus suggesting that they were native Upper Macedonians. While we can't completely rule out his use of 'Lyncestian' as a generalized term, Thucydides seems elsewhere to be quite specific in noting the presence of mercenaries, including his comment in the very next sentence following (1.24.4) where he describes the approach of "Illyrian mercenaries." This leads me to think that it's at least somewhat more likely that the historian actually meant just what he wrote and that these 'Lyncestian' hoplites were spear/aspis- armed locals. Such a suppositon is important in that Arrhabaeus was a maternal ancestor of Philip II and both his experiment with providing skirmishers with heavy arms and the causes for its failure might have had a significant influence on Philip's own military reforms some 65 years later.

It is certainly possible that the villages/market towns of Upper Macedonia, might provide small numbers of Hoplites, but there is no evidence and it might seem a little unlikely.
OTOH, there is evidence from 6 C and later graves in lower Macedonia that Hoplite panoplies existed and were used by native Makedones( I forgot to mention this in the brief survey), perhaps by Aristocrats and their retainers, or townsmen see for example this newspaper report:-

Eighty warriors buried with their weapons and armor found in ancient graves at Archontiko dig.
Macedonian warriors lying at eternal rest for more than 2,500 years in the ancient graveyard at Archontiko, Pella, have
kept secret both their gold and the Greek character of Macedonia. An inscription in the Ionian alphabet on a 500 BC clay
vase is thought to be one of the most important finds of recent years, as valuable as the gold which adorned the fully
armed Macedonian warriors.
The inscription came to light during this year's excavation of the western graveyard of the ancient settlement,
whose name is still not known. It has yielded, so far, 396 tombs from the seventh to the early third century BC and more
than 5,000 finds. Among them are 80 gold-bedecked warriors dressed like heroes in their armor, and beside them their
wives, revealing that there were Macedonians in Pella two centuries before the time of Phillip and Alexander.
Their gold grave costumes, made by local Macedonian metal workers, bear witness to the wealth, noble origins, heroic
stature and leading role of aristocratic Macedonian families in the second half of the sixth century BC.

The warriors, buried in full armor, and their wives in gold funeral garments resembling their wedding dresses, indicate a
high living standard and social status, and provide valuable evidence of funeral rites and beliefs about the pursuits of the
dead.
Gold masks, breastplates, foil and other grave ornaments adorning clothes, shoes, helmets, shields, swords and spears,

Other reports refer to the helmets as mostly, if not all, of Illyrian types, remains of 'Argolic' shields and fittings from tube-and-yoke armour associated with 'organic' leather remains ( probably the corselet itself).