The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[MeinPanzer]

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

A handful of tests, mostly performed by Connoly, have shown that the use of the Macedonian pelte of Asclepiodotus with a porpax is one likely method, but as Asclepiodotus makes clear, phalangites employed other kinds of shields. And it is only you who has announced that hanging shields are suicidal; I would like to see some rigorous testing before concluding anything.

There are several assumptions here - why would there not be as many body armours as shields in preserved trophies or stored panoplies?

Because shields are always many times more plentiful than body armour in inventory lists, for the quite obvious reason that shields were an essential part of the heavy infantryman's panoply, and thus more were dedicated by individuals or provided by benefactors to the state; on top of this, most body armour was expensive.

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).

I have already explained why it would be possible for a phalangite to use a full-size Argive aspis with sarissa.

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'.

You originally suggested that the adoption of the thureos was on account of the Aetolians' success in defeating the Galatians with missiles, and yet Pausanias clearly states that the thureos was insufficient for this purpose. This is my main disagreement with you: I agree that the shield was adopted probably within a decade or so of the Galatian invasion, but I think for other reasons, not directly because of the interaction between Aetolians and Galatians that we hear about.

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.

Following this reasoning, what reason would the Greeks have had for equipping their hoplites with the thureos? The Galatian invasion offered them even less reason than Chaeronea did to change shields, because whenever hoplites were engaged in combat, barring severe imbalances in numbers, they did quite well.

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.

Once again, this logic doesn't always prevail in history. The Boeotians changed from hoplite-thureophoros infantry to the Macedonian phalanx after being defeated by the Aetolians - among whom there is no evidence for the use of the Macedonian phalanx.

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.

This is a good point which I had not thought of.

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.

This isn't the case. Philip's invasion was too sudden for the Aetolians to do anything but abandon their homes. Polybius makes clear that the Aetolians thought the region around Thermon all but impenetrable, and thus foolishly maintained richly furnished houses there undefended with stocks of supplies to celebrate the Thermika: "For as the annual fair and most famous games, as well as the elections, were held there, everybody kept their most costly possessions in store at Thermus, to enable them to entertain their friends, and to celebrate the festivals with proper magnificence" (5.8.5). No mention is made of the Aetolians moving their property into Thermon for defensive purposes. Furthermore, he uses the verb anakeimai to refer to the hopla stored in the stoas of the sanctuary, which is a verb only used to refer to dedications or offerings, and so these were simply the normal panoplies kept there.

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.

We hear numerous times of the dedications of Celtic arms among the Aetolians in the literary sources, we have several archaeological indications of Celtic arms being dedicated at Thermon, and the victory over the Galatians not only would have left a large number of arms to be collected by the Aetolians, but it was also considered their most important victory, so it seems very likely that many of those arms were Galatian. Nor were these arms useless because they were burnt - quite the opposite, Polybius makes clear that the arms were so plentiful, and of such good quality, that the Macedonians returned with heaps of spoils and had to pick the absolute best and burn the rest - a clear riposte to the destruction wrought by the Aetolians at Dion and Dodona in previous years. Finally, far from there not being time to raise Aetolian troops, at the time Aetolia was drained of troops because the league's strategos was off in Thessaly campaigning, which is why Philip attacked in the first place, and why the Aetolian response was so weak. These 15,000 panoplies therefore could not have regularly been in use.

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....

The size of the sample is small, but then again, the overall number of representations we possess of this shield is tiny, and obviously we have even fewer representations of the inside of the shield, so, as with so much else in ancient history, we make do with what we have! Such votive shields, whether terracotta or metal often had the handle orientation represented, to better represent the shield in realistic detail, and so this is not unusual at all, nor is there reason to think that the porpax was added later. And there isn't any reason to think that these were hung up by such straps, either: simple holes were added to the edges of such votive shields to provide for being hung up when necessary, which was much easier than adding on a small strap in the middle of the shield with which to hang it.

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...

Firstly, the drawing is clear, and one certainly is rimmed - I will provide very high resolution scans of the original reproduction of the drawing to show this. Secondly, the Agios Athanasios soldiers are almost certainly equipped as cavalrymen and/or hoplites, and not as phalangites. Thirdly, you seem to be dodging the question, Paul, of how a phalangite could use a shield like that seen on the Pydna monument to carry a sarissa two-handed. Please, outline the mechanics of how that individual could carry his shield with a porpax and also carry the sarissa with both hands. Also, if the Pydna shield is that of a phalangite, where is the telamon?

[Macedon]

Congrats guys for a very interesting discussion thus far. These days I have limited time to devote to compile well researched and referenced long posts, so I would only like to make a short comment regarding the thyreos.

The thyreos is a lighter shield that can more efficiently be used in personal combat outside the phalanx than a heavy round hoplon aspis. The 3rd century saw a change in Greek warfare that shifted the weight of normal campaigning from a clash of two hoplitic phalanxes to a series of raiding and irregular battles. Of course ordered battles did occur and the hoplite did retain his traditional equipment, but a more effective light hoplite had to be invented. The success of the Gauls might have played a role, although to my mind the Greeks already knew the concept of thyreos long before that, especially through Italy, but its use alongside the hoplon shows, in my opinion, that it was used for a different type of combat. The Gauls used it as their main phalanx protection against the Macedonians (even though we have no detailed account of their battles against the Macedonians and the demise of Ptolemy Ceraunos), but, if I remember well, the use of their thyreos in the phalanx was characterized by the Greeks as inadequate, obviously in comparison to the hoplon. The use of the thyreophoroi in the accounts regarding the reformation of Philopoemen is described as mainly skirmishing / irregular, while they retained a limited ability to fight in line.

In conclusion, in my opinion, the need for a more effective irregular army that would operate in any terrain mainly as raiders and of course as a countermeasure for raiders, garrisons in passes etc led to peltasts being rearmed with the thyreos rather than hoplites getting rid of the hoplon. In the course of decades, the hoplite saw less and less use in the field and his importance diminished even more.

[PMBardunias]

No luck in finding the Pergamum image I was looking for. Do you have an image of the actual bronze strip, or simply a line drawing from it? Trust me, I wanted that shield to be rimmed more than you do for my own reasons, but if you analyze it, the chances that it is are slim. First, just from the drawing it is clear that there is an obscured portion where that shield bearer's face should be- right above the shield section in question. Second, if the inner edge of the semicircular motiff were truly the limit of the shield on top, then the shield would have to have a faceted surface, which is unlikely. Third, there are 5 shields of the same type on that strip and only one of them would be this special rimmed type.

Also, as to the thureophoroi, I don't think they were adopted because they were in any way superior to sarissaphoroi, or hoplites for that matter in set battle. As mentioned above, social and tactical change is more likely the reason. From the Pergamum strip you can see how thin and spindle-shaped some of these were. There are Thracian shields that predate the adoption of the thureos that are rather close in proportion, see below: In fact, the whole notion of a medium weight infantryman with an oblong, single-center grip shield in a greek context probably goes back to Iphicrates.

In examining a mock-up of a pelta/ochane system, it is clear to me that the porpax is actually much more important than the antilabe in supporting the sarissa with a strap. The wrist does not need support because the forearm is already locked into place and of course does not bend. As noted a page or so ago, weight on the antilabe throws the whole system out of balance. So given a choice between one or the other I'd go with only a porpax, off center if need be. Obviously the antilabe has a function in keeping the arm in the porpax properly as well as helping to rotate the shield in a proper two-grip system, but altering it to allow the wrist to pass through is not worth it if it ruins its primary function as second grip for a later phase when the shield needs to be actively used with the sword. Hoplites are often shown holding objects in their left hands while supporting the shield by porpax alone. The same could have been donw with the sarissa. Because it would have pressed against the rim of the shield, the arm would not easily slip free from the porpax.

You can grip the sarissa with the arm in a porpax if you can rotate the hand away from the inner surface of the shield, see below:

As to Macedonians using a longche in place of a dory. Interesting and perhaps similar to what occured with Roman triarii. We sometimes lose sight of just how big and specialized the late dory was, perhaps because we compare it to the sarissa. Below is one of my favorite images comparing spears. IN this case the "dory" is a cavalry spear, so a couple feet need chopping off, but the form, though a bit exagerated, is probably the same as the late dory. The other spear is about appropriate for a longche, perhaps a little long. Perhaps Macedonians found a shorter, handier spear better suited to their non-sarissaphoroi needs.

[MeinPanzer]

No luck in finding the Pergamum image I was looking for. Do you have an image of the actual bronze strip, or simply a line drawing from it? Trust me, I wanted that shield to be rimmed more than you do for my own reasons, but if you analyze it, the chances that it is are slim. First, just from the drawing it is clear that there is an obscured portion where that shield bearer's face should be- right above the shield section in question. Second, if the inner edge of the semicircular motiff were truly the limit of the shield on top, then the shield would have to have a faceted surface, which is unlikely. Third, there are 5 shields of the same type on that strip and only one of them would be this special rimmed type.

The only thing that remains is the drawing, unfortunately; it seems that the original is now lost somewhere in storage. However, working with the image as it was originally published, I have to say that the drawing is quite clear - if you refuse to accept this detail, then you're going to have to throw out the whole plaque. Yes, there is an obscured portion where the bearer's face is, but there are also obscured portions beside the standard, the sarissa carried by the phalangite in the foreground, and a number of other areas in the scene. The excavators clearly omitted details that were not evident, which if anything inspires confidence in the portions which were drawn. Secondly, I don't think that the shield is "faceted," it's simply steeply curved and the raised area is the semicircular decoration in relief shown in profile. And finally, if you actually look at it, all five shields, though being Macedonian shields of about the same size, are different: one has absolutely no rim (second from the right), two have small rims (farthest right and farthest left), one has a larger rim (the one in question), and the morphology of the final one cannot be determined because it is not shown in profile (third from left). So, as I've stated before, these different shields fit in perfectly with the conception of such shields occupying a spectrum of different shapes and sizes, some with no rims, others with small rims, others still with fuller rims.

[Paullus Scipio]

Phew! ......you go away for one weekend and when you come back, the thread has moved on in leaps and bounds. Like Paul B. I am finding it hard to keep up with the many topics, issues and matters raised......
I would certainly like to get back to the subject of Philip's reforms before diving into later issues.... Anybody want to kick it off ?

Meanwhile to answer some points raised.....

Ruben/Mein Panzer wrote:

A handful of tests, mostly performed by Connoly, have shown that the use of the Macedonian pelte of Asclepiodotus with a porpax is one likely method, but as Asclepiodotus makes clear, phalangites employed other kinds of shields. And it is only you who has announced that hanging shields are suicidal; I would like to see some rigorous testing before concluding anything.

I believe you have misunderstood Asclepiodotus, who, like the other versions, refers to the Hoplites/corps of heavy Infantry, not necessarily sarissaphoroi, which “uses very heavy equipment – for the men are protected by shields of the largest size, cuirasses and greaves” – which distinguishes the ‘heavy infantry’ from lighter types. He then goes on to say: “The best type of shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter..” – note the use of the singular; the best type of shield for the phalanx of heavy infantry/hoplites is the Macedonian one ( as opposed, say, to the Argive aspis, or the Thureos), and of course the best type of spear is also the Macedonian that goes with it.
There is only one shield type called Macedonian. C.f. Aelian:” The phalanx will be armed with shield and spear. Now the best kind of shield is bronze, in the Macedonian style, not too concave, eight palms (8 x 3” = 2 ft.) in width….” Again singular and referring to the Macedonian shield, as opposed to other types.

Because shields are always many times more plentiful than body armour in inventory lists, for the quite obvious reason that shields were an essential part of the heavy infantryman's panoply, and thus more were dedicated by individuals or provided by benefactors to the state; on top of this, most body armour was expensive.

Yes, you are right – it was a thoughtless question, written when I was tired – especially since I am an advocate of the view that the ‘de minimis’ Hoplite panoply did not include body-armour!

I have already explained why it would be possible for a phalangite to use a full-size Argive aspis with sarissa.

But your explanation cannot be correct! It is not just Connolly, but many, including me, who have explored this question by recreation. I urge you to do the same. Cut out a 90 cm disk from a cardboard box. Add some string and hang it round your neck. Now grab a rake or broom-handle and hold it two-handed sarissa fashion. If you have the disk hanging in front of you can’t reach around the two sides to hold the ‘pike’. So place your left arm behind the hanging shield – now you can grasp the pike, but your arm is in just the right place for a porpax. Now make a two-handed thrust. The disk/”shield” slides around as you move until it is hanging beside you, side/edge on, and providing no protection at all. As well, the telamon supporting the heavy aspis is in the way of you thrusting. Now you should understand why you need a porpax……and why you can’t use an Argive aspis, because once you add the essential porpax, the shield is too big to reach the ‘pike’ with the left hand, because of the rim ( essential for structural integrity of the aspis).

You originally suggested that the adoption of the thureos was on account of the Aetolians' success in defeating the Galatians with missiles, and yet Pausanias clearly states that the thureos was insufficient for this purpose. This is my main disagreement with you: I agree that the shield was adopted probably within a decade or so of the Galatian invasion, but I think for other reasons, not directly because of the interaction between Aetolians and Galatians that we hear about.

Well, not having been there at the time, I’m not going to be too insistent on reasons, but it does seem logical to me that the Aetolians, mostly peltasts, must have observed in their battles that the Gallic ‘thureoi’ provided better protection than their own ‘peltai’, and that its long shape was suited better to the ‘peltast’ style of individual fighting than either 'aspis' or 'pelta', and having done so and captured many of them it would make sense to adopt it….I have already stated that I believe that the meaning was that the Gallic shields alone provided inadequate protection.

Following this reasoning, what reason would the Greeks have had for equipping their hoplites with the thureos? The Galatian invasion offered them even less reason than Chaeronea did to change shields, because whenever hoplites were engaged in combat, barring severe imbalances in numbers, they did quite well.

I think the answer again is likely to be found in the evolution in Greek warfare away from the heavy Hoplite, toward the more useful Peltast types, ( most mercenaries/mistophoroi seem to have been peltast types), and the realisation that the 'thureos' was a better protection for such troops. The change may also have to do with social change and the demise of the small land-holder/Hoplite class with its expensive equipment, the growth of larger armies, hence need to recruit from lower social classes. It is likely that as with most changes, many factors were at work…… but one of them was almost certainly the impression that the Gallic troops made on the Greeks. Certainly they would have been aware of the ‘long shield’ previously, in use in Northern Illyria, Thrace and Italy prior to this time – but it was the Gallic use of this ‘long shield’ that made the most impression, during the invasions.

Once again, this logic doesn't always prevail in history. The Boeotians changed from hoplite-thureophoros infantry to the Macedonian phalanx after being defeated by the Aetolians - among whom there is no evidence for the use of the Macedonian phalanx.

True, and as I say above, one should be wary of simplistic explanations when likely many factors were at work. In the case of the Boeotians, they became close allies of Macedon at the time, and likely adopted Macedonian for two main reasons;
Firstly their own 'Thureophoroi' had not proved terribly successful, as you say, against the Aetolians, and secondly adopting Macedonian arms allowed them to join and conform with the Phalanx, and show 'solidarity', with their ally Macedon...

This isn't the case. Philip's invasion was too sudden for the Aetolians to do anything but abandon their homes. Polybius makes clear that the Aetolians thought the region around Thermon all but impenetrable, and thus foolishly maintained richly furnished houses there undefended with stocks of supplies to celebrate the Thermika: "For as the annual fair and most famous games, as well as the elections, were held there, everybody kept their most costly possessions in store at Thermus, to enable them to entertain their friends, and to celebrate the festivals with proper magnificence" (5.8.5). No mention is made of the Aetolians moving their property into Thermon for defensive purposes. Furthermore, he uses the verb anakeimai to refer to the hopla stored in the stoas of the sanctuary, which is a verb only used to refer to dedications or offerings, and so these were simply the normal panoplies kept there.

You are quite correct – I had misunderstood the passage, and on re-reading it, these were indeed the panoplies kept there, as Polybius implies ‘since time immemorial’ and doubtless including many recent examples, since Polybius tells us the Macedonians utilised many ‘exchanged for their own’ – which obviously weren’t Gallic. On reflection, I believe you are also correct in saying these panoplies were not in regular use.

Such votive shields, whether terracotta or metal often had the handle orientation represented, to better represent the shield in realistic detail, and so this is not unusual at all, nor is there reason to think that the porpax was added later. And there isn't any reason to think that these were hung up by such straps, either: simple holes were added to the edges of such votive shields to provide for being hung up when necessary, which was much easier than adding on a small strap in the middle of the shield with which to hang it.

I agree with you that the device added to the back of the shield would make an unlikely ‘hanger’, but equally it is obvious that this ‘porpax’ of sheet metal has been added to the original cast object at some time, possibly in antiquity. I remain suspicious of it.

Firstly, the drawing is clear, and one certainly is rimmed - I will provide very high resolution scans of the original reproduction of the drawing to show this. Secondly, the Agios Athanasios soldiers are almost certainly equipped as cavalrymen and/or hoplites, and not as phalangites. Thirdly, you seem to be dodging the question, Paul, of how a phalangite could use a shield like that seen on the Pydna monument to carry a sarissa two-handed. Please, outline the mechanics of how that individual could carry his shield with a porpax and also carry the sarissa with both hands. Also, if the Pydna shield is that of a phalangite, where is the telamon?

Why would only one of a number of shields shown be rimmed? Whatever the drawing shows, I tend to think Paul B’s explanation the correct one. In addition, every other depiction of the “Macedonian shield”, and all the examples found ( at least 5 ) have no significant rim.
The Agios Athanasios soldiers are certainly not cavalry (Macedonian cavalry almost certainly did not carry shields at this time). Nor can they be ‘Hoplites’ since their shields are clearly ‘rimless’.
Scaling them off provides rough measurements of, for the white shield, 65 cm aprox; red and blue shields 70-75 cm aprox. This is exactly within the sizes of all extant Macedonian shields (66-74 cm) – variation is because shield size is closely related to forearm length, and Asclepiodotus “8 palms” ( which is NOT two feet, but more precisely 26.25 inches/ 65.6 cm ).
The Pydna shield shown from the rear is also roughly forearm length and hence must be 65-74 cm diameter. My own rough reconstruction differed from Connolly’s in that instead of a ‘wrist-strap’, I had a conventional antilabe, placed close to the rim, exactly like the Pydna shield, and I had no problem holding both antilabe and pike with the left hand, by simply opening the fingers to enclose the shaft.
As to a telamon, such a detail was likely painted on – I can’t think off-hand of any iconographic depiction of one, can you ?
The identity of the soldier as a 'sarissaphoroi' (despite the lack of 'sarissa' - for artistic reasons) must be all but certain, since his equipment ( and that of the soldier coming to the rescue of the fallen officer ) is clearly that of an infantryman – and only 'sarissaphoroi' carried the ‘Macedonian shield’. For artistic reasons too, the monument must show the fight between Legion and Phalanx ( the Macedonian King and cavalry fled the field)

[Paullus Scipio]

Macedon/George wrote:

In conclusion, in my opinion, the need for a more effective irregular army that would operate in any terrain mainly as raiders and of course as a countermeasure for raiders, garrisons in passes etc led to peltasts being rearmed with the thyreos rather than hoplites getting rid of the hoplon. In the course of decades, the hoplite saw less and less use in the field and his importance diminished even more.

I would broadly agree with this….the changing nature of Greek/Macedonian/Hellenistic warfare, and the impact of the gallic invasions were the likely causes of change. However, the adoption of the ‘thureos’ in Boeotia and elsewhere was by citizen troops who would previously have carried aspis/dory….


Paralus wrote:

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……… At the time of the siege of Tyre Ptolemy, son of Lagos, was not a somatophylax.

I was referring to Ptolemy Lagos throughout – purely as a generalised example (“such as Ptolemy”)of a senior Macedonian holding different posts, and likely being armed for all as the occasion demanded. I wasn’t referring to him taking part at Tyre specifically….

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?

See my previous post. The size of the ‘Macedonian shield’ falls within strict limits governed by the length of the forearm and the need to use the left hand to grasp the sarissa – 65-74 cm. As can be seen from the Agios frieze, a soldier thus armed differs little from a Hoplite, save for his slightly smaller shield, and shorter dual-purpose spear. The use of a weapon which could be thrown, and which was lighter and handier than a 'dory' is obvious in the context of holding it in the shield hand while climbing a ladder or scrambling up a breach.

Paul B. wrote:

Also, as to the thureophoroi, I don't think they were adopted because they were in any way superior to sarissaphoroi, or hoplites for that matter in set battle. As mentioned above, social and tactical change is more likely the reason.

I agree ( see my previous post), and mercenaries/mistophoroi likely ceased being Hoplites as well, between Alexander’s conquests and the Gallic invasions. The trend toward lighter, more flexible troop types had been going on for some time – the Gallic invasions perhaps exacerbated it, for it can hardly be co-incidence that spurred the Greeks into adopting the ‘thureos’ in the years following this

We sometimes lose sight of just how big and specialized the late dory was, perhaps because we compare it to the sarissa. Below is one of my favorite images comparing spears. IN this case the "dory" is a cavalry spear, so a couple feet need chopping off, but the form, though a bit exagerated, is probably the same as the late dory. The other spear is about appropriate for a longche, perhaps a little long. Perhaps Macedonians found a shorter, handier spear better suited to their non-sarissaphoroi needs.

The spear in question is the cavalry ‘Kamax’, and the other weapon falls within the typical length for a ‘longche'/short dual purpose spear.

There are Thracian shields that predate the adoption of the thureos that are rather close in proportion, see below: In fact, the whole notion of a medium weight infantryman with an oblong, single-center grip shield in a Greek context probably goes back to Iphicrates.

The image comes from the Kazanluk tomb c. 300 BC. As I remarked in my previous post, the Greeks had been aware of Thracian,Northern Illyrian and Italian use of ‘long’ and ‘ovoid’ shields pre-dating the Gallic invasions by hundreds of years ( such shields had been in continuous use since the 7 C BC Hallstatt period), but it took first-hand contact during the Gallic invasions to lead the Greeks to adopt it.
Without wishing to start another digression ( there’s already a couple of threads on it), I don’t believe Iphicrates reforms involved ‘long shields’.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

And finally, if you actually look at it, all five shields, though being Macedonian shields of about the same size, are different: one has absolutely no rim (second from the right), two have small rims (farthest right and farthest left), one has a larger rim (the one in question), and the morphology of the final one cannot be determined because it is not shown in profile (third from left). So, as I've stated before, these different shields fit in perfectly with the conception of such shields occupying a spectrum of different shapes and sizes, some with no rims, others with small rims, others still with fuller rims.

I don't agree that all five are different at all. To me the only odd one out is the one you perceive as having a distinct rim, and I think Paul B. has the right of it - not least because these two side by side figures should surely have the same type shields. Furthermore, as I have said previously, none of the extant examples, archaeological or iconographic, has any hint of a significant rim......In order for readers to judge for themselves I attach some examples....

[PMBardunias]

I have to say that the drawing is quite clear - if you refuse to accept this detail, then you're going to have to throw out the whole plaque. Yes, there is an obscured portion where the bearer's face is, but there are also obscured portions beside the standard, the sarissa carried by the phalangite in the foreground, and a number of other areas in the scene. The excavators clearly omitted details that were not evident, which if anything inspires confidence in the portions which were drawn.

Your logic is reversed here, for I am suggesting that the excavators did indeed omit a detail that was less than evident- the top curve of the pelta. Comparison makes the inclusion of such a curved line likely, just as comparison allows us to guess that there should be a bottom half to the thureos held by the next figure to the right.

Secondly, I don't think that the shield is "faceted," it's simply steeply curved and the raised area is the semicircular decoration in relief shown in profile.

The pattern on the shield face is radially symetrical. Thus if one demi-lune is facing directly at us, then the other has to be facing directly up. If this is that case, its edge cannot be the top border of the shield, but some point in the pattern's center.

And finally, if you actually look at it, all five shields, though being Macedonian shields of about the same size, are different: one has absolutely no rim (second from the right), two have small rims (farthest right and farthest left), one has a larger rim (the one in question), and the morphology of the final one cannot be determined because it is not shown in profile (third from left). So, as I've stated before, these different shields fit in perfectly with the conception of such shields occupying a spectrum of different shapes and sizes, some with no rims, others with small rims, others still with fuller rims.

I have no problem with little rims, we see little rounded rims sometimes, as in the Italian relief showing a pelta and sarissa Paul M-S poted above. My problem with that shield being interpreted as you suggest is not the "rim" but the unorthodox and unlikely curvature- far too steep, more bucket than bowl.

[PMBardunias]

I believe you have misunderstood Asclepiodotus, who, like the other versions, refers to the Hoplites/corps of heavy Infantry, not necessarily sarissaphoroi, which “uses very heavy equipment – for the men are protected by shields of the largest size, cuirasses and greaves” – which distinguishes the ‘heavy infantry’ from lighter types. He then goes on to say: “The best type of shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter..” – note the use of the singular; the best type of shield for the phalanx of heavy infantry/hoplites is the Macedonian one ( as opposed, say, to the Argive aspis, or the Thureos), and of course the best type of spear is also the Macedonian that goes with it.

This does not help your case Paul, for while your version eliminates reference to multiple type of Macedonian shield, it adds the unavoidable implication that an Argive aspis could be used by sarissaphoroi, but is not "the best".

I think Ruben correct in that there were multiple variants upon the basic pelta theme, in depth if not rim size, all of which could be used with a two-handed grip, but those that are "not too hollow" are best. My experimentation leads me to agree with this, depth gets in the way.

[MeinPanzer]

I believe you have misunderstood Asclepiodotus, who, like the other versions, refers to the Hoplites/corps of heavy Infantry, not necessarily sarissaphoroi, which “uses very heavy equipment – for the men are protected by shields of the largest size, cuirasses and greaves” – which distinguishes the ‘heavy infantry’ from lighter types.

There can be no doubt that Asclepiodotus' "sustema ton hopliton" is exclusively phalangites: "The corps of hoplites... uses very heavy/the heaviest equipment - for the men are protected by shields of the largest size (aspisi megistais), cuirasses, and greaves - and long spears of the type which will be called "Macedonian."

He then goes on to say: “The best type of shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter..” – note the use of the singular; the best type of shield for the phalanx of heavy infantry/hoplites is the Macedonian one ( as opposed, say, to the Argive aspis, or the Thureos), and of course the best type of spear is also the Macedonian that goes with it.
There is only one shield type called Macedonian. C.f. Aelian:” The phalanx will be armed with shield and spear. Now the best kind of shield is bronze, in the Macedonian style, not too concave, eight palms (8 x 3” = 2 ft.) in width….” Again singular and referring to the Macedonian shield, as opposed to other types.

If you're going to nitpick these statements, you're going to have to nitpick the Greek. The Greek of Asclepiodotus is "Ton de phalaggos aspidon ariste he Makedonike chalke oktopalaistos ou lian koile." A literal translation of this would be "Of the shields of the phalanx, the best is the Makedonian, bronze, eight palms [in diameter], not too concave." This means either that in ancient times the Macedonian shield was that which was bronze, eight palms in diameter, and shallow, or that the best kind of shield in Asclepiodotus' eyes is a type of Macedonian, and that there are other kinds which are more concave and larger. The implication is clear: phalangites could employ different kinds of shields, but in his eyes the small shallow one was best. Note also that in the following sentence, he does not write of the best type of spear, but simply states that it must be longer than ten cubits but shorter than twelve.

It is clear that Aelian changes things, because he omits the "of the phalanx" part, but it is widely agreed that Arrian and Aelian modified the military manuals they drew upon (either Polybius' or Posidonius', or both), whereas Asclepiodotus drew from them directly.

But your explanation cannot be correct! It is not just Connolly, but many, including me, who have explored this question by recreation. I urge you to do the same. Cut out a 90 cm disk from a cardboard box. Add some string and hang it round your neck. Now grab a rake or broom-handle and hold it two-handed sarissa fashion. If you have the disk hanging in front of you can’t reach around the two sides to hold the ‘pike’. So place your left arm behind the hanging shield – now you can grasp the pike, but your arm is in just the right place for a porpax. Now make a two-handed thrust. The disk/”shield” slides around as you move until it is hanging beside you, side/edge on, and providing no protection at all. As well, the telamon supporting the heavy aspis is in the way of you thrusting. Now you should understand why you need a porpax……and why you can’t use an Argive aspis, because once you add the essential porpax, the shield is too big to reach the ‘pike’ with the left hand, because of the rim ( essential for structural integrity of the aspis).

Unfortunately, I do not have an array of accurately-made shields of different shapes and sizes, so I cannot test this accurately, nor can any test with a flat shield be helpful in this debate. I hope that at some point in the future, a rigorous test of this can be made.

Well, not having been there at the time, I’m not going to be too insistent on reasons, but it does seem logical to me that the Aetolians, mostly peltasts, must have observed in their battles that the Gallic ‘thureoi’ provided better protection than their own ‘peltai’, and that its long shape was suited better to the ‘peltast’ style of individual fighting than either 'aspis' or 'pelta', and having done so and captured many of them it would make sense to adopt it….I have already stated that I believe that the meaning was that the Gallic shields alone provided inadequate protection.

I think the answer again is likely to be found in the evolution in Greek warfare away from the heavy Hoplite, toward the more useful Peltast types, ( most mercenaries/mistophoroi seem to have been peltast types), and the realisation that the 'thureos' was a better protection for such troops. The change may also have to do with social change and the demise of the small land-holder/Hoplite class with its expensive equipment, the growth of larger armies, hence need to recruit from lower social classes. It is likely that as with most changes, many factors were at work…… but one of them was almost certainly the impression that the Gallic troops made on the Greeks. Certainly they would have been aware of the ‘long shield’ previously, in use in Northern Illyria, Thrace and Italy prior to this time – but it was the Gallic use of this ‘long shield’ that made the most impression, during the invasions.

Fair enough. I think we are largely in agreement on this point, but I am simply cautioning that although the Greeks' exposure to Galatian warriors was undoubtedly the catalyst for the thureos' adoption, we cannot know how quickly it came into use, and how widely at first. It's a shame the Aetolian-Acarnanian alliance of 262 does not specify what kind of arms the hoplites, men-with-hemithorakia, and light troops furnished by Aetolia were equipped with.

True, and as I say above, one should be wary of simplistic explanations when likely many factors were at work. In the case of the Boeotians, they became close allies of Macedon at the time, and likely adopted Macedonian for two main reasons;
Firstly their own 'Thureophoroi' had not proved terribly successful, as you say, against the Aetolians, and secondly adopting Macedonian arms allowed them to join and conform with the Phalanx, and show 'solidarity', with their ally Macedon...

But one could equally argue that like the Boeotian league prior to 245, the Aetolians, who were primarily concerned with the domestic front after 279 through to the Chremonidean war, had little reason to reform their military until later, when they began to engage in hostilities again.

I agree with you that the device added to the back of the shield would make an unlikely ‘hanger’, but equally it is obvious that this ‘porpax’ of sheet metal has been added to the original cast object at some time, possibly in antiquity. I remain suspicious of it.

Such separate clay handles were also added to cast votive terracotta shields - they had to be, because they couldn't be added in the casting process. The Telamon horde was deposited sometime before the battle in 225, so it must have been added before then, and the most likely explanation is that it was simply added when it was produced to create a more true-to-life model. I don't think there's any cause for suspicion.

Why would only one of a number of shields shown be rimmed? Whatever the drawing shows, I tend to think Paul B’s explanation the correct one. In addition, every other depiction of the “Macedonian shield”, and all the examples found ( at least 5 ) have no significant rim.

Because it was the norm for men to carry different kinds of shields, as long as they were appropriate for the phalanx? Unless someone can produce the original or a copy of the drawing which shows that the rim is an error, there is no reason to doubt it any more than any of the other details depicted.

The Agios Athanasios soldiers are certainly not cavalry (Macedonian cavalry almost certainly did not carry shields at this time). Nor can they be ‘Hoplites’ since their shields are clearly ‘rimless’.Scaling them off provides rough measurements of, for the white shield, 65 cm aprox; red and blue shields 70-75 cm aprox. This is exactly within the sizes of all extant Macedonian shields (66-74 cm) – variation is because shield size is closely related to forearm length, and Asclepiodotus “8 palms” ( which is NOT two feet, but more precisely 26.25 inches/ 65.6 cm ).

Well, we can't say for sure who the fourth man with a kausia, spear, and brown and purple cloak is, but why must a hoplite carry a rimmed shield?

I feel a note should be made here about shield sizes and extant examples. Six different finds have been made of the remains of bronze shield facings for what we today call Macedonian shields: fragmentary finds from Dodona, Vegora, Dion, and Staro Bon?e; and largely intact examples from Pontus and Pergamon. The first four all date to within a very short timespan, the first half of the third century BC, the sixth to between the years 189/88 and 160/59, and the fifth to before 133. Of the first four, the fragment from Dodona is too fragmentary to be able to extrapolate its original diameter; the estimates of the diameters of the other facings are all close to 74 cm. The Pergamon facing originally measured 66 cm in diameter, and the Pontic example slightly over 80 cm.

So, if we take the actual numbers, and account for the fact that four out of six were likely produced to the same specifications, that gives us three sizes: 66, 74, and 80 cm. Iconographic evidence, again mostly from Macedonia, is weighted towards the 70-75 cm range. The evidence thus points to a spectrum of shield sizes, ranging from shields with diameters of slightly over 60 cm up to around 80 cm

The Pydna shield shown from the rear is also roughly forearm length and hence must be 65-74 cm diameter. My own rough reconstruction differed from Connolly’s in that instead of a ‘wrist-strap’, I had a conventional antilabe, placed close to the rim, exactly like the Pydna shield, and I had no problem holding both antilabe and pike with the left hand, by simply opening the fingers to enclose the shaft.

If you look at the Pydna shield, there is no way that its bearer could extend his hand to grip a sarissa while keeping his arm through the porpax - as Paul has shown with his diagram, it would need to extend a significant distance past the edge in order to do so.

As to a telamon, such a detail was likely painted on – I can’t think off-hand of any iconographic depiction of one, can you ?

Yes, two shields painted on the wall of the Macedonian tomb from Katerini dating to the first half of the fourth century BC, which are represented as hanging from nails by red straps; and a shield depicted with a strap hanging down from it on a tetradrachm dating to 336/5-329/8 BC.

The identity of the soldier as a 'sarissaphoroi' (despite the lack of 'sarissa' - for artistic reasons) must be all but certain, since his equipment ( and that of the soldier coming to the rescue of the fallen officer ) is clearly that of an infantryman – and only 'sarissaphoroi' carried the ‘Macedonian shield’. For artistic reasons too, the monument must show the fight between Legion and Phalanx ( the Macedonian King and cavalry fled the field)

Again, you have to be careful to distinguish between what we call the Macedonian shield and what the ancients called the Macedonian shield. All we know about the ancient Macedonian shield was that it was c. 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and faced with bronze. Today, the term is used to refer to just about any round shield which was used by Hellenistic armies which wasn't an Argive aspis. So we know that the ancient Macedonian shield was likely only used by phalangites, but we have no reason to think that some of the larger shields we take today to be Macedonian shields were not in use among hoplites.

I don't agree that all five are different at all. To me the only odd one out is the one you perceive as having a distinct rim, and I think Paul B. has the right of it - not least because these two side by side figures should surely have the same type shields. Furthermore, as I have said previously, none of the extant examples, archaeological or iconographic, has any hint of a significant rim......In order for readers to judge for themselves I attach some examples....

The one on the far right clearly has a small rim which juts out a bit, unlike the one second from the right which has absolutely no rim whatsoever. Why should the two side by side figures have the same kind of shield any more than the other figures depicted on the ground? And we cannot count on the extant examples to represent all kinds of shields which may have been in use, especially if four of them were likely manufactured in the same place at around the same time.

But while you are bringing up these examples, how does the 80 cm shield of Pharnaces fit into your conception? How could a man carrying that shield by a central porpax use it to carry a sarissa with both hands, and how would that be different from a man carrying an Argive shield 80 cm in diameter?

Your logic is reversed here, for I am suggesting that the excavators did indeed omit a detail that was less than evident- the top curve of the pelta. Comparison makes the inclusion of such a curved line likely, just as comparison allows us to guess that there should be a bottom half to the thureos held by the next figure to the right.

Comparison with what? The Pydna monument, one other source? And if the excavators did find the detail of the shield's rim at that point less than evident, then I'm sure they would have left it blank, just like the thureos' lower half. It seems to me that like the testimony that Philopoemen employed Argive shields and that Cleomenes taught his men to wield their shields without porpakes, you simply wish to ignore this evidence, though there is no good reason to do so.

The pattern on the shield face is radially symetrical. Thus if one demi-lune is facing directly at us, then the other has to be facing directly up. If this is that case, its edge cannot be the top border of the shield, but some point in the pattern's center.

I don't think I quite understand what you mean, but I think it's clear that the raised line on top of the shield shows the edge of the demi-lune. However, not much faith should be put into the rendering of such decoration on spherical objects, as ancient artists almost always seem to have had difficulties in doing so.

I have no problem with little rims, we see little rounded rims sometimes, as in the Italian relief showing a pelta and sarissa Paul M-S poted above. My problem with that shield being interpreted as you suggest is not the "rim" but the unorthodox and unlikely curvature- far too steep, more bucket than bowl.

It's not much, if any steeper than the shield second from right, and we find such deeply-dished shields on other sources as well, such as coinage.

[PMBardunias]

Comparison with what? The Pydna monument, one other source? And if the excavators did find the detail of the shield's rim at that point less than evident, then I'm sure they would have left it blank, just like the thureos' lower half. It seems to me that like the testimony that Philopoemen employed Argive shields and that Cleomenes taught his men to wield their shields without porpakes, you simply wish to ignore this evidence, though there is no good reason to do so.

The comparison is with the other peltae on the strip. We are doing exactly the same thing when we assume that there is a bottom to the thureos on the left, though it too is missing. Except there I doubt you will find much arguement.

You are misunderstanding in "shield's rim at that point less than evident, , then I'm sure they would have left it blank". They did not leave it blank because they copied exactly what was still there (perhaps a rubbing?). What you are calling a "rim" has to be there and could not be left out because it is the outer edge of the shield's bottom, the missing part is the curve that would have joined the edge of the"rim' to the shield.

It's not much, if any steeper than the shield second from right, and we find such deeply-dished shields on other sources as well, such as coinage.

The problem is that it is not hemisphirical, but a trapezoid with a rounded top if we accept what is seen uncritically. See below for 1,000 words or so worth of picture. The shield on the left is what it would look like as you advocate. The sides are too steep and too straight, once seen in toto it really just doesn't look right. Now if we add the upper curve of the shield that should be within the demi-lune, then we get the shield on the right. This shield is hemisphirical and follows the general curvature seen in all the other peltae on the strip. Note that there is still a little rim like that seen in the peltae on the opposite side of the strip and other reliefs. I have no problem with this.

The size of the ‘Macedonian shield’ falls within strict limits governed by the length of the forearm and the need to use the left hand to grasp the sarissa – 65-74 cm.

Unless Macedonians were part Orangutang, no sarissaphoroi's forearm governed the diameter of a 74cm shield with a central porpax. At 6'3" my forearm is surely longer than most ancients, but any shield larger than 55-57cm is longer than my reach and my grip does not extend to/past the rim as Connolly recreated. That is measuring from dead center of the shield just ahead of my bent bicep, so it does not take the width of porpax into account.

So, either porpaxes were not central, the grip did not extend so close to the rim, or a compromise of the two.

[PMBardunias]

The spear in question is the cavalry ‘Kamax’, and the other weapon falls within the typical length for a ‘longche'/short dual purpose spear.

Where does the word kamax originate from? When was it first used to apply to a cavalry dory?

I ask because Xenophon refers to "dorata" used by the cavalry of his day which I assume are the same as the spear in that image above.

Xen.Hell.3.4.14] "When they came to a hand-to-hand encounter, all of the Greeks who struck anyone broke their spears" (?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????, ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????????? ?? ??????,)

[MeinPanzer]

The comparison is with the other peltae on the strip. We are doing exactly the same thing when we assume that there is a bottom to the thureos on the left, though it too is missing. Except there I doubt you will find much arguement.

And yet, as I've pointed out, there are clear differences between the other shields depicted on the strip, so I don't think it is as odd as you suppose that one might have a more substantial rim.

You are misunderstanding in "shield's rim at that point less than evident, , then I'm sure they would have left it blank". They did not leave it blank because they copied exactly what was still there (perhaps a rubbing?). What you are calling a "rim" has to be there and could not be left out because it is the outer edge of the shield's bottom, the missing part is the curve that would have joined the edge of the"rim' to the shield.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the drawing of the area indicated in red, between the blank spot beside the central decoration of the shield and the edge of the shield, is accurate, but only based on the relief as it was found, and not on the way it was originally intended to be?

The problem is that it is not hemisphirical, but a trapezoid with a rounded top if we accept what is seen uncritically. See below for 1,000 words or so worth of picture. The shield on the left is what it would look like as you advocate. The sides are too steep and too straight, once seen in toto it really just doesn't look right. Now if we add the upper curve of the shield that should be within the demi-lune, then we get the shield on the right. This shield is hemisphirical and follows the general curvature seen in all the other peltae on the strip. Note that there is still a little rim like that seen in the peltae on the opposite side of the strip and other reliefs. I have no problem with this.

It seems to me that the artist rendered the demi-lunes on these shields at irregular intervals, so I have no problem with seeing what is shown of the top demi-lune as simply the extreme edge, which then continues onto the other side of the shield, and that the shield is simply a steep dome shape.

Unless Macedonians were part Orangutang, no sarissaphoroi's forearm governed the diameter of a 74cm shield with a central porpax. At 6'3" my forearm is surely longer than most ancients, but any shield larger than 55-57cm is longer than my reach and my grip does not extend to/past the rim as Connolly recreated. That is measuring from dead center of the shield just ahead of my bent bicep, so it does not take the width of porpax into account.

So, either porpaxes were not central, the grip did not extend so close to the rim, or a compromise of the two.

See, this is why stringent testing is necessary - take a sampling of the average heights of Hellenistic males based on anthropometric evidence, then find men close to those heights and have them test shields of various sizes, shapes, and methods of suspension, and find out the results. Of course, this would be difficult to do, but it would shed much more light on the issue. And on top of this, these are only shields of 70-75 cm diameter - how long would a man's forearm be to be able to properly employ an 80 cm shields, like the Pontic one?

[PMBardunias]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the drawing of the area indicated in red, between the blank spot beside the central decoration of the shield and the edge of the shield, is accurate, but only based on the relief as it was found, and not on the way it was originally intended to be?.

I'm saying that the original strip had details, such as the bottom of the thureos, the face of many of the men, etc., that were lost to modern scholars- probably flattened. The modern artist simple illustrated what he found with fidelity- not adding what could be there. One of the things that was obscured was the very slight upper margin of that pelta.

See, this is why stringent testing is necessary

That's something of a mantra of mine at this point. But it is not a panacea. Connolly did excellent testing, but he also brought many preconceptios to the table. Blyth's work as well is marred by working within a narrow paradigm.

[Paullus Scipio]

[attachment=6:3m0q4gfp]<!-- ia6 mak th_agiosathmacfriez3.jpg<!-- ia6 [/attachment:3m0q4gfp]Paul B wrote:

This does not help your case Paul, for while your version eliminates reference to multiple type of Macedonian shield, it adds the unavoidable implication that an Argive aspis could be used by sarissaphoroi, but is not "the best".

All three versions of the Hellenistic manual make it clear that they are referring to the earlier tactical methods of the Greeks of Xenophon’s day, as well as later Macedonian practice, and that ‘heavy/close-order Infantry’ need not necessarily be Macedonian style, though this was considered the best. ( the manuals refer to sources pre-Macedonian such as Xenophon, Clearchus and Iphicrates)…Arrian: 32 “ Briefly and systematically I have given an account of the old Greek and Macedonian formations…”

I think Ruben correct in that there were multiple variants upon the basic pelta theme, in depth if not rim size, all of which could be used with a two-handed grip, but those that are "not too hollow" are best. My experimentation leads me to agree with this, depth gets in the way.

As I have said, both for rimmed Argive aspis, and rimless Macedonian shields, the key measurement is forearm length, and this governs size, with the former in the 82-95 cm diameter range, and the later 66-74 cm range. The depth is variable, with the strong impression that the earlier ones of Philip and Alexander’s day were fairly shallow while the latest ones were quite domed ( see my photos posted above), hence Aelian’s “not too concave..” ( see attached profiles of Begora and Venice sculpted shields; c.f. other photos)

Where does the word kamax originate from? When was it first used to apply to a cavalry dory?

The word originates from the greek for ‘vine prop’, a long thin pole, and was in use for this large butted, small-headed, tapered shaft 9 ft or so cavalry spear from before 400 BC, hence was in use in Xenophon’s day (used inter alia by Aeschylus, Euripides, Josephus, Arrian.)

Ruben wrote:

There can be no doubt that Asclepiodotus' "sustema ton hopliton" is exclusively phalangites: "The corps of hoplites... uses very heavy/the heaviest equipment - for the men are protected by shields of the largest size (aspisi megistais), cuirasses, and greaves - and long spears of the type which will be called "Macedonian."

Whilst, by Polybius’ day, ( the likely original source for the Hellenistic manuals), the ‘heavy Infantry/Hoplites’ were indeed “armed in the Macedonian manner”, such had not been the case earlier, and as I have noted the manuals claim to be ‘generic’ and cover earlier ‘heavy infantry’ – note also that the Macedonian shield is here called ‘aspis’, clearly meant in the generic sense of shields, rather than specifically ‘Argive aspis’, obsolete by Polybius’ day….

Unless Macedonians were part Orangutang, no sarissaphoroi's forearm governed the diameter of a 74cm shield with a central porpax. At 6'3" my forearm is surely longer than most ancients, but any shield larger than 55-57cm is longer than my reach and my grip does not extend to/past the rim as Connolly recreated. That is measuring from dead center of the shield just ahead of my bent bicep, so it does not take the width of porpax into account.

So, either porpaxes were not central, the grip did not extend so close to the rim, or a compromise of the two.

See, this is why stringent testing is necessary - take a sampling of the average heights of Hellenistic males based on anthropometric evidence, then find men close to those heights and have them test shields of various sizes, shapes, and methods of suspension, and find out the results....... But while you are bringing up these examples, how does the 80 cm shield of Pharnaces fit into your conception? How could a man carrying that shield by a central porpax use it to carry a sarissa with both hands, and how would that be different from a man carrying an Argive shield 80 cm in diameter?

…the Pontic Pharnakes shield in the Getty museum does not, in fact, have a diameter of 80 cm ( see below) and the smallest rimmed Argive aspis is about 82 cm.

Stringent tests while optimum, are not necessary to determine ‘basic’ facts – and the test I suggested earlier is sufficient to establish the necessity of a porpax, and consequent impossibility of using a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ with sarissa…

The diameter of Connolly’s shields such as that I posted earlier was 66 cm, and the one I made some 30 years ago was 70 cm, and clearly both can be held with sarissa….

I feel a note should be made here about shield sizes and extant examples. Six different finds have been made of the remains of bronze shield facings for what we today call Macedonian shields: fragmentary finds from Dodona, Vegora, Dion, and Staro Bon?e; and largely intact examples from Pontus and Pergamon. The first four all date to within a very short timespan, the first half of the third century BC, the sixth to between the years 189/88 and 160/59, and the fifth to before 133. Of the first four, the fragment from Dodona is too fragmentary to be able to extrapolate its original diameter; the estimates of the diameters of the other facings are all close to 74 cm. The Pergamon facing originally measured 66 cm in diameter, and the Pontic example slightly over 80 cm. So, if we take the actual numbers, and account for the fact that four out of six were likely produced to the same specifications, that gives us three sizes: 66, 74, and 80 cm. Iconographic evidence, again mostly from Macedonia, is weighted towards the 70-75 cm range. The evidence thus points to a spectrum of shield sizes, ranging from shields with diameters of slightly over 60 cm up to around 80 cm.

Your variation is rather loose, and the size range is not as broad as “60-80” cm.The sizes are in fact as follows:-
The Hellenistic manuals : “8 palms” = 66 cm
Dodona (fragmented) : diameter unascertainable
Begora (fragmented, illustrated above) : 66cm
Dion (fragmented) : 73.6 cm
Staro Bonce (3 x fragmented) A) 73-74 cm; B) 72 cm (estimated); C) 66 cm (estimated)
Pergamum (intact); 66 cm
Pontus; 71-73 cm (NOT 80 cm, which is the diameter of the whole thing as displayed in the Getty museum – see photo- including the splayed out triangular pieces and tabs, which originally were bent over the rim to hold the facing in place)
Iconography:
Ptolemaic shield mould: 70 cm ( see attached photo)
Venice ‘life size’ sculpture from Egypt ( illustrated above) : 70 cm
Aghios Athanasius: white; 66 cm aprox; red and blue; 70 cm aprox on main frieze; on entrance 70 cm aprox ( see attached)
Stele of Nikolaos son of Hadymos: ( see attached) 70 cm aprox – note from shield position – flat, extended to left, raised – that it is almost certainly being held by a porpax.

All this demonstrates that the ‘Macedonian shield’, as used by ‘sarissaphoroi’ was around 70 cm (66-74 cm), as Katerina Liampi noted in her study; rimless, concave, and apparently getting more dished over time. The smallest diameter for an extant ‘Argive aspis’ is around 82 cm, and some are over 90 cm.

….and that there are other kinds which are more concave and larger. The implication is clear: phalangites could employ different kinds of shields, but in his eyes the small shallow one was best.

As I have said, we can be quite precise about THE Macedonian shield ( see above); the diameter varied only between very narrow limits due to the size of the forearm ( itself clearly implying use of porpax). Further, these shields were not of widely different sizes, some rimless, some rimmed. The existence of shield moulds such as the ptolemaic one ( see attached) shows that these were 'mass produced', as does the fact that Ptolemy could despatch thousands of shields at a time to a Greek state to re-arm, also implying a high degree of standardisation and mass production. ALL the evidence is quite consistent.

As to the idea that a rimmed ‘Argive aspis’ was used with the sarissa, you are relying on a single use of this by Pausanias, writing nearly 300 years after the event, and the probability is that he was mistaken, and his source said simply ‘aspis’, which we have seen from the manuals could be used to describe the Macedonian rimless shield. This likelihood is heightened by Plutarch’s description ( 50 years or so before Pausanias) of the re-arming, for he uses ‘aspis’ only.
As to the reference to Cleomenes teaching the Spartans to use the sarissa and “to carry their shields/aspides by a strap/ochanus instead of by a fixed handle/porpax”, this does not necessarily mean in battle, and one definition of ‘aspis’ is a shield with a porpax – there is no implication that porpaxes were dispensed with. To muddy the waters further ‘porpax’ is a generic handle ( and can be used of part of a horse’s bridle for instance), not just armband, so the reference could be to the handgrips of ‘thureoi’ for all we know!( if Sparta went through a ‘thureos’ stage like other states ).

The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a single type of rimless 'Macedonian Aspis/Pelta' , whose diameter was 66-74 cm.