The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Astiryu1]

Is there any link or photos of this news clip? It would be pretty nice to see some of the finds!

[MeinPanzer]

Well, that has been amply demonstarted....and that a 'hanging' shield is worse than useless..

Hardly, since rigorous testing of all different orientations of modes of suspension have not been carried out.

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

And yet, once again, A) pectorals or other such armour almost certainly were not sitting around in armouries or temples for Cleomenes or Philopoemen to make use of, and B) a pectoral would not cover parts of the body, like the shoulder, arm, side of the body, and thigh, as an Argive aspis would. As for them being unsuited to close combat, all I'm referring to is what Polybius is referring to - the "post-sarissa" phase.

Uh-Huh !...just as I expected...knew this point was coming ! ... I don't think this is convincing. Firstly, two inscriptions can hardly give us 'termini'.

Actually, it's just one dated inscription, and yes, by the very definition of the term, it gives us a terminus ante quem.

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!

The power of the Galatians lay in their numbers, not in the thureos, which, as the previously quoted passage of Pausanias shows, was considered a poor defence for the Celtic warriors. Early adoption seems logical, but we can't say how early - whether a year later, or a decade later, and there could have been intervening events which moved the Aetolians towards adopting this piece of armour.

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)

Once again, my point was that our only termini ante quem date to about 250, which means that this shield could have been adopted in the 270s, in the 260s, or in the 250s, and this is exactly the time when our understanding of Hellenistic history is haziest. One would expect the Greeks to have adopted the Macedonian phalanx after Chaeronea, and yet it took them almost a century to do so, so there isn't just a direct connection between contact with enemy armour and its adoption. Similarly, Peoples in Asia Minor had sustained contact with Galatians since 278, and they adopted the thureos quite early, but they didn't adopt Celtic sword types until the late third century at the earliest. It's clear that arms were not always immediately adopted upon contact with the enemy.

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. [/color][/i]

The Macedonian equipment almost certainly wasn't captured equipment in use among the Galatians, but rather hearkens back to earlier Aetolian resistance against the Macedonians; considering that this coinage was the first issued by the league, it was their propagandistic debut, and they made full use of it to tout their resistance not only against the barbarian Celts in their finest hour, but also against those other barbarians of the north who had so damaged Greece. And Aetolia did possess quantities of thureoi, but they don't seem to have been in use: there were 15,000 panoplies to be found at Thermon in 218 (Polybius 5.8.9), most of them likely dedicated after the repulsion of the Galatians.

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?

The only example of the round spina and umbo shield that I know of which shows how it was carried is a 3rd c. BC votive miniature from Telamon, which has a miniature porpax attached to the back, and not a single grip (see Sekunda, "The Republican Roman Army, 200-104 BC," 22). Related shields, such as the totally flat, rimless round cavalry shields which came into use in the Hellenistic period, also used porpax and antilabe (as seen on a 2nd c. BC votive relief from Pergamon), and it seems to have been the standard for cavalry shields in the Hellenistic period.

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.

Greek artists regularly got small things like depth of field and arm articulation wrong in art, but they have a good track record with depiction weaponry, and this scene shows no signs of misporportioned arms or armour, so there is no reason to doubt the verisimilitude of the shields in this scene (which match those on the Pydna monument in size), both in size and shape. But again, considering that these shields are quite large in diameter and one has a small rim, how would you suggest they managed to hold a sarissa two-handed while carrying them with porpax?

...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 !

So, then, once again, please explain how that figure was able to wield a sarissa two-handed while carrying such a shield with a porpax.

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'

Well, the tomb was for two men, so one could be a cavalryman while the other was an infantry officer, or something like that.

[PMBardunias]

He is not a dismounted cavalryman for these bore different, larger shields with spina/umbo, as other parts of the frieze show.

Isn't the fellow in the image of the Paullus monument below with the aspis-ish shield mounted?

So, then, once again, please explain how that figure was able to wield a sarissa two-handed while carrying such a shield with a porpax.

You mention one of the sarissaphoroi's peltae has a "rim". There is a fellow at the far left who as avery small rim, but I wonder if you are thinking of the righthand man in the pair on the left. I once thought that this was a rim too, but a better image, which I don't have with me, shows that this is an illusion caused by wear on the line that should be the outer curve of the shield. With that curve obscured, what you are looking at is the decorative semicircle, not the outer face, See below:

[MeinPanzer]

Isn't the fellow in the image of the Paullus monument below with the aspis-ish shield mounted?

No, he's just in the background. Hellenistic artists often rendered depth of field strangely, so that figures sometimes appear to float above others, when they are meant to be behind them.

You mention one of the sarissaphoroi's peltae has a "rim". There is a fellow at the far left who as avery small rim, but I wonder if you are thinking of the righthand man in the pair on the left. I once thought that this was a rim too, but a better image, which I don't have with me, shows that this is an illusion caused by wear on the line that should be the outer curve of the shield. With that curve obscured, what you are looking at is the decorative semicircle, not the outer face, See below:

I'm working from the original publication of this drawing, as found in Altertuemer von Pergamon I, and I don't see the bulge you as you draw it. What is the source of your better quality image? I can re-scan the original if you'd like, or perhaps you can scan your copy?

[Paralus]

see for example this newspaper report:-
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.

One would dearly love an archaeological report rather than a newspaper report that proceeds from the assumption that this proves the "Greek character" of ancient Macedonia.

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'

To quote J. K. Anderson:

Most important of all is the frieze from the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. This has been convincingly interpreted as showing actual incidents of the Battle of Pydna on 22 June 168 B.c., and it includes three examples of "Macedonian" shields whose embossed decoration is very similar to that on the south wall of the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. These are all carried by infantrymen, which removes the temptation to argue that the occupants of this rich sepulcher might have served in the cavalry.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

No, he's just in the background. Hellenistic artists often rendered depth of field strangely, so that figures sometimes appear to float above others, when they are meant to be behind them.

Have to agree with Ruben here. The horse/mule with it's neck turned is 'loose' and may represent the baggage animal that started the battle ( note it is 'harness free' ). The animal is facing left, with it's head curved and turned back to the right.The figure in the foreground, in front of the shield, is a Macedonian cavalryman or mounted officer, sitting astride a stumbling horse - a senior officer perhaps, to judge by his cuirass, and badge of 'knot of hercules'. The figure in the background with shield seems to be coming to his aid. A clincher here that he is a heavy infantryman, hence sarissaphoroi is the typical Antigonid Infantry helmet, and 'knee' portion of a greave, visible in the photo just below the shield and to the left of the falling mounted man's hip. Note: the Infantryman holds the shield high, to parry a blow from a Roman horseman to the left ( out of picture here), and hence is using a porpax. Were he to have a 'hanging' shield, he could not do this and would be dead - unable to protect himself.....

[MeinPanzer]

To quote J. K. Anderson:

Most important of all is the frieze from the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. This has been convincingly interpreted as showing actual incidents of the Battle of Pydna on 22 June 168 B.c., and it includes three examples of "Macedonian" shields whose embossed decoration is very similar to that on the south wall of the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. These are all carried by infantrymen, which removes the temptation to argue that the occupants of this rich sepulcher might have served in the cavalry.

One of the two (whether it was Lyson or Kallikles who bore the embossed bronze shield, we cannot say) was certainly an infantryman, but the other individual interred in the tomb very well may have been a cavalryman.

[Paullus Scipio]

To quote J. K. Anderson:

Most important of all is the frieze from the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. This has been convincingly interpreted as showing actual incidents of the Battle of Pydna on 22 June 168 B.c., and it includes three examples of "Macedonian" shields whose embossed decoration is very similar to that on the south wall of the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. These are all carried by infantrymen, which removes the temptation to argue that the occupants of this rich sepulcher might have served in the cavalry.

One of the two (whether it was Lyson or Kallikles who bore the embossed bronze shield, we cannot say) was certainly an infantryman, but the other individual interred in the tomb very well may have been a cavalryman.

Yes, indeed, for the corselet is definitely that of a mounted man, despite Anderson's quote, for he has overlooked the significance of this . It is clear also that high-ranking Macedonians, led by Alexander in person on occasion, fought both as Companion cavalry and on foot in full panoply with shield etc on occasion. It is likely that being wealthy they had equipment for both. Earlier, we mentioned senior officers/Phalanx commanders fighting on foot in the front line and I recall that Ptolemy Lagos ( friend of Alexander and future pharoah) was certainly skilled with the sarissa - apparently using one to blind an elephant in both eyes on one occasion while defending a fort against Perdiccas (Diod XVIII.34), and being wounded while fighting on foot taking a hill-fort in India on another occasion (Arrian IV.24)

[Paralus]

It is clear also that high-ranking Macedonians, led by Alexander in person on occasion, fought both as Companion cavalry and on foot in full panoply with shield etc on occasion.

Whilst that is most likely correct, it pays to be wary of the terminology. Almost always when Alexander is on foot he leads the agema of the hypaspists and others rather than the “cavalry companions”. Members of the hetairoi (Companion cavalry) noted in company with Alexander on foot do not readily come to mind - aside from the odd somatophylax (this is going to become confusing). Notices of royal hypaspists do though. More than once Arrian will call these royal hypaspists somatophylakes :

1.24.1: He placed them under the command of Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, one of the royal bodyguards (somatophylakes)…

3.17.2: He then took the royal body-guards (somatophylakes), the shield-bearing infantry, and 8,000 men

4.3.2: he took the body-guards (somatophylakes), the shield-bearing guards, the archers, and Agrianians…

The clincher is:

4.30.3: He remained quiet until they began their retreat; then taking 700 of the body-guards (somatophylakes) and shield-bearing infantry…

That this is a scribal error for “7” is most unlikely as a number would only be necessary were he to take, say, two of the seven. In any event, when this is the case, Arrian invariably names them (5.13.1 being a classic case).

Thus we come to a passage I can recall where the cavalry are with Alexander on foot (1.6.5):

As Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his bodyguards (somatophylakes) and personal companions (hetairoi) to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill…

It is argued that as the hypaspists (“shield-bearing” guards) are later ordered to cross the river, this must mean the seven and the Companion Cavalry. Hetairoi clearly means the cavalry here but, as the foregoing clearly demonstrates, somatophylakes hardly of necessity means “the seven”. It might as easily (and likely does) refer to the royal hypaspists.

Hetairoi, as I’ve mentioned before, need not mean the cavalry either. The most striking example is that of Tyre. Here, as Arrian notes, Alexander embarks on ship with the hypaspists to take the wall (2.23 - various edited):

The shield-bearing guards hypaspists occupied one of these vessels, which he had put under the command of Admetus; and the other was occupied by the regiment of Coenus, called the aesthetairoi. Alexander himself, with the shield-bearing guards intended to scale the wall […] the shield-bearing guards mounted valiantly along these upon the wall; for their captain, Admetus, proved himself brave on that occasion, and Alexander accompanied them…

Later Arrian states “Alexander with the Companions (hetairoi) got possession of the wall…”. As it is highly unlikely that Companion cavalry charged the wall from ship, Arrian plainly means those troops Alexander led: the royal hypaspists.

Interestingly whatever one argues as the armament of the hypaspists must also follow for the aesthetairoi. If it is argued that hypaspists must be hoplites to do this work, are we to suppose that the aesthetairoi were tasked with the same job armed with a two foot target and a javelin? (or worse, sarisa). A two foot target minus a porpax?

Hardly. More likely these phalangites were operating in something closely approximating a hoplite panoply - perhaps with those "Macedonian" shields. That the reverse might apply to hypaspists is not to be considered though.

[Old Husker]

Re: The idea per Paulus Scipio that the concept of early Macedonian peltasts using thursting spears "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:"

J.G.P. Best (in Thracian Peltasts, p. 141) wrote: "It should be borne in mind that there were two main types of peltasts, notably those with two javelins, who fought from afar, and those with a long thrusting spear, who engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. The archaeological material in particular gives evidence that both types occured in Thrace (see Appendix). Xenophon in the Anabasis mentions once that both methods of fighting were used also by the tribe of the Mossynoikoi in Asia Minor (5.4.25). Hence it is by no means surprising that we find both types of peltast in Macedonia also. It is clear that only the peltast with the thrusting spear was suitable to engage in hand-to-hand fighting in phalanx formation and indeed the Macedonian phalanx consisted exclusively of this type of peltasts."

The Appendix cited contains three examples of ancient art depicting what Best identified as "Thracian (?) peltasts" using "spears" (between p. 144 and 145). Two more such depictions called peltasts with long thursting spears appear in plates between p. 6 and 7. Personally, I think that the three figures in the Appendix could just as easily be wielding their last javelin, but must admit that the other two depictions sure do look like they are using long, thrusting spears (as, interestingly enough, does another figure shown earlier between p. 6 and 7, which Best claims is using a javelin!). I can't say that Best's concept of peltasts fighting in phalanx formation makes much sense to me, long spear or not, unless he is somehow referring here to sarissaphoroi of Philip's day. (By the way, Best also prefers the idea that the Lyncestian hoplites fighting Brasidas in 423 were mercenary Greeks rather than Macedonians.) - Fred

[Paullus Scipio]

Sorry, I should have elaborated further. This is the single literary source for Thracians/Triballi using 'spears' called 'sarissa' around Philip's time which leads to the assumption that these 'sarissa' were the Macedonian 'sarissa' (16-18 ft long) of Philip and Alexander. As I pointed out, if 'sarissa' is a word for 'long spear' as seems likely, we cannot know what length this Thracian 'sarissa' was, or whether it was a precursor of the Macedonian 'sarissa' that too many quickly assume was derived from the Thracian example referred to here....(There is another much later literary reference in Lucian, not relevant here, to a Median cavalryman being spitted by a Thracian 'sarissa' - through his horses belly !)
As Fred has pointed out, identification of weapons on iconography is problematic, not least because lengths are often altered to fit the medium. Often too, weapons are mis-identified, for example 'short' dual-purpose spears/longche are often mis-identified as either javelins (pure missile weapons and smaller) or spear/dory (larger, intended for hand-to-hand fighting), which as Fred has pointed out, Best seems to have done.

The 'Mossynoeci' in Xenophon are not Thracians proper, but rather an Anatolian Black Sea people. Xenophon describes their armament in detail:
"They all had shields/pelta made of the skins of white oxen and with the hair still on, shaped like an ivy leaf; and in the right hand they carried a spear(longche !) about 9 ft long, with a spearhead at one end and a round knob made out of the wood of the shaft at the other. They wore short tunics, which did not reach the knee, and which were about as thick as a linen clothes-bag. On their heads they wore leather helmets of Paphlagonian type, with tufts of hair in the middle so as to produce the effect of a tiara. They also carried iron battle-axes/sagaris."
The "nine foot longche" here is clearly larger than the 8 foot or so dory. (Being longer than a dory, hence a "long spear" it might well have been called 'sarissa' in Macedonian or Thracian).The "hairy peltai" are of interest too, as well as leather helmets with central vertical plume falling over tiara-like (uncommon in this era).

Like Fred, I don't think Thracian spearmen fought as a Greek phalanx - there would likely never be enough of them, nor would they have the 'drill skills' necessary, which isn't to say they couldn't fight in tribal 'close order' as needed.Perhaps they 'mixed in' with groups of peltasts to provide protection against cavalry - the only significant threat they couldn't outrun, or perhaps certain tribes were 'spearmen' just as the 'Dii' tribe were rare in being swordsmen.

[Paullus Scipio]

"MeinPanzer"wrote:

Hardly, since rigorous testing of all different orientations of modes of suspension have not been carried out.

Well, I think enough have been done over the last 30 years or so to demonstrate the most likely method....and that 'hanging shields' are suicidal. I've no doubt that 30 seconds of mock combat with you so armed would convince you too ! D

And yet, once again, A) pectorals or other such armour almost certainly were not sitting around in armouries or temples for Cleomenes or Philopoemen to make use of, and B) a pectoral would not cover parts of the body, like the shoulder, arm, side of the body, and thigh, as an Argive aspis would. As for them being unsuited to close combat, all I'm referring to is what Polybius is referring to - the "post-sarissa" phase.

There are several assumptions here - why would there not be as many body armours as shields in preserved trophies or stored panoplies? Furthermore, a 'hanging shield' is a positive nuisance, in the way, and an impediment to using one's own arms. Not to mention that 'cutting down' an aspis to allow it to be used with a sarissa would ruin its structural integrity - nor could an intact 'Argive aspis' be used - it is just too big to be used with a two-handed 'sarissa' physically ( you can't get around it).

Uh-Huh !...just as I expected...knew this point was coming ! ... I don't think this is convincing. Firstly, two inscriptions can hardly give us 'termini'.

Actually, it's just one dated inscription, and yes, by the very definition of the term, it gives us a terminus ante quem.

I'm not quibbling about that, and I meant that the inscriptions don't give us two 'termini', as I said. (the real 'terminus post quem' being 279 BC or just after...)

The power of the Galatians lay in their numbers, not in the thureos, which, as the previously quoted passage of Pausanias shows, was considered a poor defence for the Celtic warriors. Early adoption seems logical, but we can't say how early - whether a year later, or a decade later, and there could have been intervening events which moved the Aetolians towards adopting this piece of armour.

The 'poor defence' I think meant that the 'thureos' was the Celt's sole protection - he had no helmet or body armour, hence was vulnerable to missiles, especially the limbs and head outside the shield. The 'thureos' was hardly 'poor protection' compared to the smaller, thinner, flimsier 'pelta'.

Once again, my point was that our only termini ante quem date to about 250, which means that this shield could have been adopted in the 270s, in the 260s, or in the 250s, and this is exactly the time when our understanding of Hellenistic history is haziest. One would expect the Greeks to have adopted the Macedonian phalanx after Chaeronea, and yet it took them almost a century to do so, so there isn't just a direct connection between contact with enemy armour and its adoption. Similarly, Peoples in Asia Minor had sustained contact with Galatians since 278, and they adopted the thureos quite early, but they didn't adopt Celtic sword types until the late third century at the earliest. It's clear that arms were not always immediately adopted upon contact with the enemy.

I have already given reasons I think the adoption was sooner rather than later. As to adopting 'superior' weapon systems ( which may be perceived rather than factual), it may be because the astounded Greeks did not believe that the the Macedonian phalanx was superior to the Doric phalanx after Chaeronea, until after the conquests of Alexander and his 'invincible' army. Shortly after that, the invincible Macedonians were shattered twice by Gallic arms, so unsurprisingly it was these that were imitated. Then it became apparent that thureophoroi could not prevail against 'arms in the Macedonian manner' and we see the gradual adoption of these, until 'Roman arms' prevail - when ultimately the Seleucids and Ptolemies go over to these, though too late. As to absorbing weaponry, the Greeks had the technology to copy the thureos, but it was a quite different matter to learn the superior, and undoubtedly secret, skills of Celtic iron technology - certainly on a mass scale. It would take even the Romans several hundred years of contact with the Celts to absorb their iron technology that produced long quality iron swords ( despite criticism of swords that bent!), mail and beautiful iron helmets - at least on a mass scale.

The Macedonian equipment almost certainly wasn't captured equipment in use among the Galatians, but rather hearkens back to earlier Aetolian resistance against the Macedonians; considering that this coinage was the first issued by the league, it was their propagandistic debut, and they made full use of it to tout their resistance not only against the barbarian Celts in their finest hour, but also against those other barbarians of the north who had so damaged Greece. And Aetolia did possess quantities of thureoi, but they don't seem to have been in use: there were 15,000 panoplies to be found at Thermon in 218 (Polybius 5.8.9), most of them likely dedicated after the repulsion of the Galatians.

Both explanations for the presence of both types of shield on one coin seem likely, though yours may be considered the most probable bearing in mind symbology. Those 15,000 panoplies referred to by by Polybius, along with other 'treasures' were gathered up from all over Aetolia following a surprise invasion by Philip V - there was so much that much of it, much had to be stored in houses surrounding the temple citadel, to be ultimately captured by the Macedonians, who kept the richest/choicest and burnt the rest. I don't think this was even mostly Gallic since it represented ALL trophies/'stored arsenal arms in Aetolia's Temples since time immemorial. Much of it was useless, as shown by it being burnt. Nor does it show that the Gallic equipment/thureoi among the 'panoplies' was not in use, since there was no time to raise Aetolia's troops, only time to gather up the 'treasures/arsenals' and take them to a "safe" place, apparently.

The only example of the round spina and umbo shield that I know of which shows how it was carried is a 3rd c. BC votive miniature from Telamon, which has a miniature porpax attached to the back, and not a single grip (see Sekunda, "The Republican Roman Army, 200-104 BC," 22). Related shields, such as the totally flat, rimless round cavalry shields which came into use in the Hellenistic period, also used porpax and antilabe (as seen on a 2nd c. BC votive relief from Pergamon), and it seems to have been the standard for cavalry shields in the Hellenistic period.

Again, as with the 'Eubolos tombstone', my sixth sense told me you would raise this ! :wink:
The problem I have with these two examples is again the size of the sample ( two) and the fact that they are miniature /model votive items. In the case of the Telamon example, apparently all we have is the drawing. This shows what must be a cast shield with spina and umbo. To this, at some time, has been added a sheet metal item, which may be a hanging loop, or intended to be an oversize, out of scale porpax If the latter, it would be very difficult/uncomfortable to use such a porpax, placed right over the hollow of the 'umbo'; and against this interpretation, why would one add such an item to a cast one-piece votive item unless it was for the practical purpose of 'hanging loop'? The evidence here is at best equivocal, though possible....

Greek artists regularly got small things like depth of field and arm articulation wrong in art, but they have a good track record with depiction weaponry, and this scene shows no signs of misporportioned arms or armour, so there is no reason to doubt the verisimilitude of the shields in this scene (which match those on the Pydna monument in size), both in size and shape. But again, considering that these shields are quite large in diameter and one has a small rim, how would you suggest they managed to hold a sarissa two-handed while carrying them with porpax?

I don't believe 'sarissaphoroi' shields had significant rims, and I think Paul B. is correct that in fact both shields here are the same - depicted rimless. Certainly the shields of the 'Aghios Athanasios' fresco and the 'Aemilius Paullus' frieze show rimless shields of maximum size to be used with 'sarissa', as one might expect...

[Paullus Scipio]

Astiryu wrote:

Is there any link or photos of this news clip? It would be pretty nice to see some of the finds!

Paralus wrote:

One would dearly love an archaeological report rather than a newspaper report that proceeds from the assumption that this proves the "Greek character" of ancient Macedonia.

Indeed, I can only plead, me too, not least because it would add valuable evidence to the 'Linothorax' debate ! Alas, I can find nothing and Greek archaeological reports can be confounded slow, and hampered by political overtones......

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Whilst that is most likely correct, it pays to be wary of the terminology. Almost always when Alexander is on foot he leads the agema of the hypaspists and others rather than the “cavalry companions”. Members of the hetairoi (Companion cavalry) noted in company with Alexander on foot do not readily come to mind - aside from the odd somatophylax (this is going to become confusing). Notices of royal hypaspists do though. More than once Arrian will call these royal hypaspists somatophylakes :

Indeed, confusion may reign ! Ptolemy was both a personal friend and 'Friend' ( one of the seven) of Alexander - and it was he who was the example of my post !

Later Arrian states “Alexander with the Companions (hetairoi) got possession of the wall…”. As it is highly unlikely that Companion cavalry charged the wall from ship, Arrian plainly means those troops Alexander led: the royal hypaspists.

Not necessarily ! If those closest to Alexander served in 'concentric rings' so to speak, it is possible that for instance, a 'Friend' ( one of the seven closest personal bodyguards) such as Ptolemy Lagos served in that capacity, as an officer of the 'Agema/Royal hypaspists', a 'Companion/Hetairoi' of the Cavalry Guard, and as a Commander of a Brigade of the Phalanx, and would own equipment suitable to each.......consider there were more 'Taxiarchs' (11) than brigades of the Phalanx ( 8 at most) in India for example.... and there are plenty of analogies for similar 'multiple posts' of military Officers later....

Interestingly whatever one argues as the armament of the hypaspists must also follow for the aesthetairoi. If it is argued that hypaspists must be hoplites to do this work, are we to suppose that the aesthetairoi were tasked with the same job armed with a two foot target and a javelin? (or worse, sarisa). A two foot target minus a porpax?

Not at all ! Their armament being the same need not follow at all.... one of the soldiers from the 'Agios Athenasios' fresco, armed with longche,(in lieu of sarissa) and a largeish 'pelta' would not be significantly armed in an inferior way to a ' Hypaspist' from the "Alexander Sarcophagus" armed with Dory or longche, and argive aspis. "Hetairoi" companions/elite nobles of Macedonia would also be similarly armed by simply taking up shield and the traditional 'longche/hunting spear that all could use......all would provide a 'spearhead/elite' for an assault on Tyre, all similarly armed.....

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

Whilst that is most likely correct, it pays to be wary of the terminology. Almost always when Alexander is on foot he leads the agema of the hypaspists and others rather than the “cavalry companions”. Members of the hetairoi (Companion cavalry) noted in company with Alexander on foot do not readily come to mind - aside from the odd somatophylax (this is going to become confusing). Notices of royal hypaspists do though. More than once Arrian will call these royal hypaspists somatophylakes :

Indeed, confusion may reign ! Ptolemy was both a personal friend and 'Friend' ( one of the seven) of Alexander - and it was he who was the example of my post !

I do not think so. If by "Ptolemy was both a personal friend and 'Friend' ( one of the seven) of Alexander" you are referring to the Ptolemy I quoted earlier, you are incorrect. Ptolemy, son of Lagos, was an attested somatophylax. If we are to assume that Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, was one of the seven, why is it, after having been sent home with the newlyweds, he is demoted from that position to taxis commander at Issos where he dies? Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, is a royal hypaspist - not a somatophylax and was more likely promoted, upon his successful misson for reinforcements, to taxis commander.

Later Arrian states “Alexander with the Companions (hetairoi) got possession of the wall…”. As it is highly unlikely that Companion cavalry charged the wall from ship, Arrian plainly means those troops Alexander led: the royal hypaspists.

Not necessarily ! If those closest to Alexander served in 'concentric rings' so to speak, it is possible that for instance, a 'Friend' ( one of the seven closest personal bodyguards) such as Ptolemy Lagos served in that capacity, as an officer of the 'Agema/Royal hypaspists', a 'Companion/Hetairoi' of the Cavalry Guard, and as a Commander of a Brigade of the Phalanx, and would own equipment suitable to each.......consider there were more 'Taxiarchs' (11) than brigades of the Phalanx ( 8 at most) in India for example.... and there are plenty of analogies for similar 'multiple posts' of military Officers later....

At the time of the siege of Tyre Ptolemy, son of Lagos, was not a somatophylax. It matters not as Arrian, invariably, notes those around Alexander when he is on foot (cf the Malli town where again the royal hypaspist Peucestas signally executes his duty) and there are no somatophlyakes noted here on the wall or in the boat (cf Hydaspes). Arrian plainly has slipped hetairoi for hypaspists for these are the troops Alexander is leading. As well, when on horse the king was guarded by the ile basilikoi (later named the agema of the cavalry) and those somatophylakes not tasked with other duties (eg. Hephaestion commanding the royal hypaspists or somatophylakesat Gaugamela). On foot this task fell to the hypaspists and, a fortiori, its agema.

Interestingly whatever one argues as the armament of the hypaspists must also follow for the aesthetairoi. If it is argued that hypaspists must be hoplites to do this work, are we to suppose that the aesthetairoi were tasked with the same job armed with a two foot target and a javelin? (or worse, sarisa). A two foot target minus a porpax?

Not at all ! Their armament being the same need not follow at all.... one of the soldiers from the 'Agios Athenasios' fresco, armed with longche,(in lieu of sarissa) and a largeish 'pelta' would not be significantly armed in an inferior way to a ' Hypaspist' from the "Alexander Sarcophagus" armed with Dory or longche, and argive aspis. "Hetairoi" companions/elite nobles of Macedonia would also be similarly armed by simply taking up shield and the traditional 'longche/hunting spear that all could use......all would provide a 'spearhead/elite' for an assault on Tyre, all similarly armed.....

Hence my suggestion of the "Macedonian" shield. I disagree though: if this was hoplites' work why send in "longcheophoroi"? And just how "largeish" might you need to make these peltae (for this taxis) to suit your preconception? Given that other phalanx units were used in similar work as the anabasis went on, it is far more likely that they carried something larger than a two foot target and could be armed with a dory. Ditto the hypaspists but that last is, of course, anathema.

The "Alexander sarcophagus" is well open to interpretation.