Macedonians used leather helmets?

[Paullus Scipio]

Gentlemen, I think that Ruben's post sums up the answer to the original query quite well and I agree broadly with everything you both say, save for some of the detail.......I'll merely make some minor points.
Mein Panzer/Ruben wrote:

I would disagree because Diodorus was not discussing tactics while Polyaenus was, yadda yadda yadda, but then that debate comes to an end.

..on this relatively minor point(when does the kausia appear in Macedon?), I think I will come down in Satsoglou-Paliadeli's camp - because there are coins of Philip II on horseback clearly wearing one, so it clearly pre-dates Alexander's anabasis...... I would suggest coins might provide more depictions....but only as far as the introduction of coins into Macedonia, in the mid-6th century, of course.The earliest clear depiction of a kausia was this coin of Alexander I ( he of the famous dealings with Xerxes) c. 480 BC....on others of his coins he wears the petasos...

However, if the former[raw ox-hide helmets] is taken to be referring to the kausia, which is possible, then it is fairly clear.

...I would doubt this greatly, and am more inclined to think that the kausia was a hat, and it serving as a helmet in war is literary flourish or poetic licence (though a soldier of Pyrrhus famously wore one in battle, and the running footman beside Alexander on the Pompeii mosaic probably wears one in battle too) - having said which, almost every other type of Greek hat had a bronze helmet equivalent (pilos,boeotian,petasos etc), so perhaps the kausia too served as a helmet.....but no actual evidence so far!

As to the 'three-ply linen corselet', it's protective value must have been almost nil, if it really was three-ply.Caracalla himself was supposed to have worn one ( as protection against assassination), as well as the kausia, but it failed to trouble his assassins if he was wearing it at the time... :wink:

The bronze shield (aspis chalke) is fairly straightforward.

...if Caracalla really equipped his men with 'aspides', then that too is another inaccuracy, as we know, but perhaps this is just Dio being careless with terminology...

They aren't unique to the Macedonians, but as a part of the trio of krepides, chlamus, and kausia they are distinctly Macedonian.

O.K - I'll happily accept that explanation, since it is consistent with what we think we know!
Giannis wrote:

That lion-hunting scenes is used by everyone to support his own theory about the tomb's resident. But all theories put the painting in the same period. What difference if it's Philip II or Alexander or Philip Arridaeus? They all live the same time,they were the same family! It makes little difference.

I would agree, from the point of view of military equipment, dress etc...but the identity of the occupant still has some significance...If the tomb is that of Philip Arrhidaeus, it opens up the possibility that some of the equipment, for example the iron helmet, so like that shown on Alexander's coins might actually have been his, and more particularly that the exquisite gold and ivory shield is possibly Alexander's famous 'shield from Troy'.........wouldn't that be nice if it were so?
One piece of evidence which for me rules out the tomb being that of Philip II, and which I haven't seen mentioned before, are the ivory heads of Alexander.....early depictions of him do not show the famous tilted head/raised eyes pose. Plutarch (De Alexandri magni fortuna et virtute II.2 and Alexander IV.1) tells us that this was invented by Lysippus, Alexander's court sculptor whom Alexander liked so much that he only allowed him alone to portray his likeness......and Lysippus' portrayal did not exist when Philip II was assasinated, or for long afterward.... oops :oops: ...off topic again !!

To return to the topic, if we allow that Caracalla may have got much right, ( though I strongly doubt he got it all right) and that Leather/Rawhide helmets were worn by Macedonian Infantry ( and after all, there does seem to be some supporting evidence for these), it is certain that not all the Infantry wore them ( too many bronze ones around), and if they existed they were probably restricted to the very poorest...and likely quickly replaced when loot permitted.Similarly, Macedonians did not universally wear kausia,chlamys and krepides , for Polyaenus(IV.2.10) famously tells us that Philip(and presumably Alexander's) Infantry were eqipped with helmet, shield, greaves and sarissa, and of course greaves ( also shown on the Alexander sarcophagus) are incompatible with 'high boots'/krepides of whatever sort....and the coins showing Kings sometimes in Kausia, sometimes in petasos reminds us that even this was not universal.....dress and equipment varied,(see e.g. 'Agios' painting) as of course one might expect, which Caracalla seems to have been unaware of.......