Macedonian Silver Shields

[Duncan Head]

What were the enemies of the phalangites? Galatians and Greeks or Asians?

The only interpretation that I've seen in print is that the enemies are Roman infantry and maybe Roman or Pergamene cavalry (the piece comes from Pergamon) and the battle is Magnesia. This was in Minor M Markle, "A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types", Hesperia 68.2 (1999), referring back to P J Callaghan, "On the Date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon", BICS 28 (1981).

Previous discussions in other fora, which Ruben was involved in, did produce the hypothesis that the oval-shielded infantry might have been Galatian rather than Roman. They look naked or nearly so in the drawing (but how reliable is it? AFAIK only the drawing was published in the original publication of the Pergamon excavations; a photo would be really useful!) and their shields are smaller than the Roman scuta on, say, the Aemilius Paullus monument. Hard to be sure.

[MeinPanzer]

Indeed very interesting. Nice to see that the pilos helmet was apparently still in use at that late date.

There are a couple of pieces of evidence (including a terracotta figurine of a dead soldier from Pergamon who wears a pilos helmet and beside whom lies a small round shield; both are painted blue, undoubtedly representing iron) that even point to its popularity in the second century BC- perhaps a revival of sorts?

The rims of the shields are clearly visible, although the shield of the phalangite with the crested pilos could also be interpreted as rimless.

Yes, some of those shields are clearly entirely rimless, just like the Macedonian shields on the Aemilius Paullus relief. It seems that rimless shields were employed alongside shields with diminutive rims by phalangites. It is no surprise, really, as just like every other piece of defensive equipment in use at this time, many different forms are found in use at the same time and even amongst the same unit of men.

What makes us sure that phalangites with sarissai were depicted? That the position of the arms seems to indicate a two-handed hold? Couldn't warriors with a shorter spear and a one hand hold be depicted?

They could, but I find it extremely unlikely.

Very strange is the position of the shield of the first phalangite with the crested pilos. The deepest part of the shield is shown to the right of the spear/pike. How could someone manage to handle shield and pike in such a way with a two hands hold? A strap or something else, from which the shield could be supported, can not be seen. He must have hold the left hand in reverse (?), otherwise he might have been an anatomical monster :lol: (or the depiction is just bad).

My explanation would be that Hellenistic artists sometimes awkwardly warped anatomy and perspective in order to fit things together properly. Examples of this can be found in much of ancient Greco-Roman art in general.

It is a bit impudent but it would be very interesting to see also the other example mentioned by you, Ruben, not mainly because of the sarissa problem but in general. :wink: Is armour seen on it? What sword does the thureophoros have? From your explanations I get the clue that he wears no armour.

No armour is depicted on it, though the phalangite's legs are quite badly damaged, so I can't tell if he would be wearing greaves. The phalangite's body is quite well-preserved, however, and he is clearly only wearing a tunic. He may be wearing a helmet, but his head is so badly effaced that I simply can't tell. The sword of the thureophoros is, unfortunately, also badly damaged, but from the shape of what remains of it, it seems like it is a xiphos.

What were the enemies of the phalangites? Galatians and Greeks or Asians?

To add a bit to what Duncan wrote, they appear as if they could be either Italians or Galatians. IIRC, maybe you can add to this if I am missing something Duncan, the main evidence for them being Italians is that they wear kilts with bare upper bodies like one of the figures (or some? I can't remember) fighting on the Roman side on the Aemilius Paullus relief; that the shapes of the swords they are carrying look rather un-Celtic; and that the one on the far right seems to wear a headband or a cap with a feather in it, this being a much more Italic than Celtic thing.

The points of evidence that I see for them being Galatians is that the fallen figure on the ground beneath the rightmost cavalryman has a thick double belt, which is extremely similar to those seen on some figurines from Seleuceia on the Tigris which are most likely Galatians and which also wear kilts. In addition to this, the kilt in general was apparently fairly common among Galatian warriors. Since we last discussed this piece I've found a couple of new depictions of a Galatian cavalryman and three infantrymen wearing only kilts on funerary stelae of the second century BC.

It's unfortunate that the shape of the helmet of the fallen thureophoros is so ambiguously Montefortino-like, because it could easily be Celtic or Italic. So, it's unfortunately not clear one way or the other who these guys really are.

[PMBardunias]

What do you think of the possibility that these are really images of an old fashioned aspis, just shrunked artistically? There seems to be an artistic convention where shields are made smaller so as not to cover up too much of the image- sometimes the shields appear as no more than litle convex bucklers.

I once had a good reference for this effect in art, but have no clue where I read it. Anyone more learned know?

[Duncan Head]

To add a bit to what Duncan wrote, they appear as if they could be either Italians or Galatians. IIRC, maybe you can add to this if I am missing something Duncan, the main evidence for them being Italians is that they wear kilts with bare upper bodies like one of the figures (or some? I can't remember) fighting on the Roman side on the Aemilius Paullus relief; that the shapes of the swords they are carrying look rather un-Celtic; and that the one on the far right seems to wear a headband or a cap with a feather in it, this being a much more Italic than Celtic thing.

My own suspicion - and it can be no more than that - is that the drawing may not be the only possible interpretation of the original. I suspect the feathers were originally in a helmet, for instance,and the apparent kilt and bare torso may originally have been a tunic or mailshirt. Totally unprovable without access to a photo of the original, of course.

[Paralus]

Apologies: had an eleven year old requiring a doctor at 21:30 last night.

This may not be of any great quality due to the resizing. Here goes...

[Paralus]

Just how well did that work??

See if I can't load it onto ofoto or some such tonight.

[geala]

@ Ruben: thank you very much for the additional information!

@ Paralus: Did you try to attach it from your harddrive or do you have your pics in the Inet? If the former is the case (as for me), perhaps the picture is too big a size? I remember that then nothing happens when you try to attach a pic with to much KBytes (256 is the maximum). You just have to resize it.

[Paralus]

'Evening Wolfgang,

Resized it down to 99mb: no go.

Paullus/Paul has suggested that I host it on a photo site and he's most likely correct: don't tell him I agreed with his view as he thinks he's won the olive wreath already.

I'm back from the pub and a decent dinner and am on the job....

[Paralus]

Snapfish doesn't wan't to know and Image Shack refuses to load.

Soooo....

Aghios

[Paralus]

Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]Paralus wrote:-
[quote]On the subject of the guards at the symposium, aristocratic prickliness or not, Alexander’s guard will have been present. That he snatched a spear from a ‘confidential bodyguardâ€

[MeinPanzer]

Snapfish doesn't wan't to know and Image Shack refuses to load.

Soooo....

Aghios

Do you have the pictures of the two guards with sarissai, or just the usual images of the soldiers and the procession? None of the eight soldiers beside the symposium scene carry sarissai.

[Paralus]

First image and to the left. The photo does not capture above the frieze.

You can find Maria Tsimbbidou-Avloniti's archaeological report at Archaeopress.

From her summary for the Onassis Centre Exhibition:

Further more, the doorway of the facade is flanked by two male figures, slightly smaller than lifesize, with long spears (sarissas) in hand,who, wrapped in their cloaks and their sorrow, stand silently beside the entrance to the tomb....

[MeinPanzer]

First image and to the left. The photo does not capture above the frieze.

I'm confused as to which men you are referring to. Do you mean the leftmost men of the procession before the symposium?

[Paralus]

Sorry Rueben...and others. The host site does us no favours. I shall attempt to get it loaded onto ImageShack: there one might be able to enlarge it.

They are the two blokes that appear a little smaller in the first strip.

[MeinPanzer]

Sorry Rueben...and others. The host site does us no favours. I shall attempt to get it loaded onto ImageShack: there one might be able to enlarge it.

They are the two blokes that appear a little smaller in the first strip.

Ah, I think you are mistaken here. Of the men you are indicating, one (on the left) carries only a bronze or copper bucket, while the other carries a torch, like the other men in the procession. These are not the guards Tsimbbidou-Avloniti refers to. The two men to whom she refers are not included in this frieze, and were painted separately (as she says, flanking the doorway). I have not seen any pictures of these men before, and none have been published, to my knowledge.