Iphicratian Pelte & Pelte Sarrisophoron

[geala]

I had the pleasure to read the thread just now the first time, together one post after the other. I don't see any real reason to view the described peltai as oval.

Symmetrical can mean round or perhaps oval or perhaps rectangular. Why has "oval" more probability? I didn't read any argument for this.

We have pictures of round and crescent shaped peltai. If one is described as symmetrical, I would opt for the round one meant.

On the other hand Paul McDonnell-Staff's (you should not have same first names, folks ) argument about the nonexisting pictorial evidence for oval Greek shields cannot be dismissed entirely. After 270 BC we have at least some pictures with Greeks with oval shields. I don't know any example from the first half of the 4th c. The picture posted by Stefanos shows imho aspides from an angle. If we speculate we should at least speculate from some data base even if it is very small.

The whole concept of the Iphicratic peltast (= light hoplite) is highly debatable. But if we take it as a fact why do we not see oval peltai on a broader base, given the alleged success, f.e. with the Macedons who seemed to take some ideas from Iphicrates. An oval shield has some advantages over a round one. Iphicrates shield experiment must have died out quickly only to be suddenly revived when the Greeks saw again oval shields in Celtic hands. Sounds not very convincing. I don't believe in oval peltai before the 3rd c. BC.

But all is speculation and every opinion is possible.


Edit: Not this topic, but..., mmh, do we have a source with Nepos with a reference to linen Greek cuirasses? It seems so. Strange, I first read Nepos a year or so ago and did not get the clue. :roll:

[MeinPanzer]

I had the pleasure to read the thread just now the first time, together one post after the other. I don't see any real reason to view the described peltai as oval.

Symmetrical can mean round or perhaps oval or perhaps rectangular. Why has "oval" more probability? I didn't read any argument for this.

We have pictures of round and crescent shaped peltai. If one is described as symmetrical, I would opt for the round one meant.

The cause for confusion is why Diodorus would have to qualify the peltai as symmetrous if it was just round. Diodorus refers to peltae in use in the Hellenistic period long after the crescent shape had disappeared which were almost certainly round and yet he doesn't feel the need to describe them as anything other than peltai. It wouldn't make sense for him to describe it in opposition to earlier crescent peltai, either, as they, too, were symmetrical. The only logical reason why he would have to qualify the word pelte in the context of these reforms for his contemporary (first century BC) audience was because the peltai Iphicrates employed were unlike the peltai of their day.

On the other hand Paul McDonnell-Staff's (you should not have same first names, folks ) argument about the nonexisting pictorial evidence for oval Greek shields cannot be dismissed entirely. After 270 BC we have at least some pictures with Greeks with oval shields. I don't know any example from the first half of the 4th c.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the thureos or oval shield didn't enter Greece until the Galatian invasions of 280 BC, so any evidence of Greeks with thureoi is not relevant to this discussion.

The whole concept of the Iphicratic peltast (= light hoplite) is highly debatable. But if we take it as a fact why do we not see oval peltai on a broader base, given the alleged success, f.e. with the Macedons who seemed to take some ideas from Iphicrates. An oval shield has some advantages over a round one. Iphicrates shield experiment must have died out quickly only to be suddenly revived when the Greeks saw again oval shields in Celtic hands. Sounds not very convincing. I don't believe in oval peltai before the 3rd c. BC.

A further point of concern is that if the peltasts were so succesfull, why did longer swords not become common among Greek soldiers? The xiphoi and machairai of the Classical period were pretty much exactly the same as those of the later Hellenistic period as far as length is concerned. Among Greco-Macedonian soldiers in the Hellenistic period, the only long swords that we see are Celtic types which were adopted around the same time as the thureos. What sort of swords were these ones issued by Iphicrates that were double the length of the average hoplite's?

[PMBardunias]

A further point of concern is that if the peltasts were so succesfull, why did longer swords not become common among Greek soldiers?

I'm not sure the "light hoplites" were very successful. Iphicrate's famous successes were won with Javelin-armed peltasts.

[Komanos]

I'm less inclined to dismiss that glyph from Athens so quickly. It could just be poor craftsmanship, but they don't look much like rotated aspides to me. I'm not saying I'm wholly sold on their being oval peltai, but I find that argument somewhat more likely than their being rotated aspides.

On the subject of long swords, the xiphoi on the Belevi sarcophagus are a good bit longer than a normal xiphos. We see scattered representations of longer swords throughout artwork on pottery, but I'm not sure how much of that is stylized.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The Pyrrhic dance was supposed to be originally performed by hoplites,who were making offensive ad defencive movements stylized in the dance,as the whole hoplite battle was supposed to be coordination.So it is most likely that these shields are supposedly crudely made aspides. And they also have the double grip(though in greek art this is the case for many peltes,too)
Khaire
Giannis

[sitalkes]

In Peychova Mogila near Starosel there was found (in 2000) a mid-fourth century burial of a man with an Attic-(or modified Chalcidian) type helmet, with cheek pieces and nose guard. There is a slivered band on the forehead. He wore leather body armour, consisting of a jerkin with a high collar. It has a vertical and a horizontal section. This is the only example of leather armour currently preserved in Bulgaria. Besides this was a circular shield, made of bronze with leather inside and out. It was not possible to tell how the shield was decorated, but this may become apparent after conservation work is completed. The man also had a pair of plain bronze greaves.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Jerkin with high collar?Doesn't this remind of the armour Xenophon describes for cavalrymen,which can protect half the face? Could this be a "linothorax"? I suppose you don't have further info-photos of any of the equipment???
Khaire
Giannis

[sitalkes]

Jerkin with high collar?Doesn't this remind of the armour Xenophon describes for cavalrymen,which can protect half the face? Could this be a "linothorax"? I suppose you don't have further info-photos of any of the equipment???
Khaire
Giannis

Sorry, that's all it says in the archaeologist's report. There is only a bad photo of the helmet and some arrow heads. :evil: The collar could perhaps refer to the special pectoral worn by thracian warriors (eg plate E of The Thracians 700 BC-46 AD). Maybe I will find out more when I get to the Starosel tomb. What do you think about the shield shown on the ring - is it a thureos or something else?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hmmm,it looks deep like a hoplite shield,and the stance is typical i think.On the other hand,there is a line in the shield that could be interpreted as the inner circomference of the shield,but it could also be a strap. I find the strap a bit unlikely,but if it is,wouldn't it be certainly a pelte?
In my opinion he's just a hoplite,he doesn't seem about to throw his javelin,it's rather a spear.His carrying his shield like hoplites usually are portrayed to,he is probably a Greek and the pelte is in the unusual cymetrical (? hehe) type and not the crescent,as one would expect in Boulgaria-Thrace.
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Sorry,I may haven't understood well.The above image of the ring has anything to do with the Thracian burrial?At first i thought it has,but rereading your post I now suppose they're irrelevant? Looks more like examples from Italy,and probably one more reason to identify his as a hoplite.
Khaire
Giannis

[sitalkes]

Sorry,I may haven't understood well.The above image of the ring has anything to do with the Thracian burrial?At first i thought it has,but rereading your post I now suppose they're irrelevant? Looks more like examples from Italy,and probably one more reason to identify his as a hoplite.
Khaire
Giannis

Yes, sorry, I just happened to find the picture at the same time I found the text, they are not related. I think the shield is too flat to be an aspis and has markings on it remarkably like those on a reconstructed pelte in Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World"

[PMBardunias]

What sort of swords were these ones issued by Iphicrates that were double the length of the average hoplite's?

If the hoplite's sword he is referring to is of the short laconian model, which seems to have had a period of popularity, then it need not be all that long to "double"

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Haha,this is very true,the laconian sword appears to have had a blade of about 30cm. A big kitchen knife that means! I haven't seen that many swords of the particular period,but those I have seen-from any period including bronze-hellenistic age,include swords of the same shape and form in a vast range of dimentions. I Phillip's tomb in vergina I saw swords with blades from 40-60 cm and all could be put in the "xiphos" category. The same in Thessaloniki museum. So the statement that he double the sword lengh is a bit odd? Did all the Iphicrateans previously have the same length of sword? And did he provide them uniform one sized swords?
But as Paul sayd,at that time the laconian sword appears more frequently in art,so what he might want to say is that he favoured the longer versions of the xiphos.
Khaire
Giannis

[sitalkes]

Hi, I think of some swords shown on gold vessels from the Panagyurishte treasure when I think of these long swords. This may have a mythological context (The Seven against Thebes) but everything else about the sword is shown in exact detail. The sword shown is not a kopis, but a variation of it that is somewhat longer than the usual kopis. It makes sense for peltasts to have longer swords as this suits their more individual style of fighting.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I think it is just a kopis, much like this one
http://forums.swordforum.com/attachment ... 1069862683
Or someone may call it machaira(the one on the gold vessel)Some early kopises were as long as 60cm,like the early xiphos,so i insist that there were so many variations in every given period,that i find it unlikely to identify what Iphicrates' reform was meant to change.
Khaire
Giannis