Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx

[PMBardunias]

As I stated, I don't take this necessarily to mean that they removed the porpakes from their shields, but it certainly does mean that in order to wield their sarissae two-handed, they did not use them.

I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant that only some shields still had porpaxes.

Note also that that phalangite in the rear on the Pergamon battle plaque carries a shield with an offset rim as large as on most Argive shields.

well, I'm not sure I'd classify that as an off-set rim- more a dubiously complex curve in the shield face- but the shields are definitely in the range of aspis sizes.
When we are told that the best peltae are not too deep or large, this implies to me that some were.

And why could they not fight with their swords with a shield suspended by a grip at the edge and a strap? We know that phalangites weren't very effective in close combat, and maybe this is one of the reasons why.

Getting killed for want of a proper grip is not likely to remain in fashion long. Considering that a porpax could be a cheap leather loop, there would need to be a compelling reason to remove it. like it got in the way somehow.

The artist who made (or copied) the battle plaque was clearly unsure of how to depict the phalangites holding their shields - hence why the sarissa actually runs on the other side of the shield - so I don't think we can read too much into it.

Iagree with you, but what evidence is there that they didn't hold it that way??? Lack of evidence is a huge problem with this. Why would the artist make such a mistake? Perhaps if the memory of his sources stressed the sight of a phalanx of bronze shields coming forward in front of each phalangite- not off to the side- he drew it in a way that left the ornate shield face unobstructed.

I'm curious then, what you would suggest their stance was? It seems like your repertoire as a warrior is somewhat limited by carrying a long pike in a very tight formation.

The most common stance of warriors. As on the plaque, 3/4 forward when standing, and shoulders, toes and hips forward when moving, same as hoplites (who I written before didn't stand in the stylized completely sideways, perpendicular, stance for a variety of reasons). When moving, the left arm holding the sarissa at or near its balance point would be across the front of the torso, the hand just right of the body. The right hand to the rear pivoting the sarissa on the lever of its rear length. The strap greatly aids the front arm in this position. Because the shoulders are more frontal, the shield can be in front of the phalangite.

Try this with any weight: hold it right next to your body and hold it a few feet away- closer is always easier. The reason that some find carrying the weight easier with the hands away from the body is that they make an "A" frame of their arms, the weight hanging on extended limbs as opposed to being held up in bent arms. This works well for holding, but severely limits the range of motion for a strike since the arms are already so extended.

A problem with all of these discussions of posture is that they are very easy to transition between and may be simply snapshots with a sequence of motions. For example, if the phalangite above simply extends his left arm and leg forward, pushing off the right leg, he is in a full side-on stance. But just as we would not describe a fencer as "standing" in the full extension of the lunge we have to be careful with these poses as well.