Pausanias on Achaean armament, ca. 200 BCE

[Dan Diffendale]

Apropos of nothing, I thought I'd post a quotation I just ran across from Pausanias' Description of Greece, which I don't believe has been discussed here recently.

Pausanias 8.50.1
"As the Achaeans now turned their gaze on Philopoemen and placed in him all their hopes, he succeeded in changing the equipment of those serving in their infantry. They had been carrying short javelins (mikra doratia) and oblong shields (epimekestera hopla) after the fashion of the Celtic thureos or the Persian gerra. Philopoemen, however, persuaded them to put on breast-plates (thorakas) and greaves (knemidas), and also to use Argolic shields (aspisin Argolikais) and long spears (dorasi megalois)."

This should be ca. 200 BCE.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Just a point, short javelins(mikra dorata) should be translated as short spears.
In fact what he did,was making them hoplites,instead of light troops.Otherwise I don't see why equip them with argolic shields.
And another interesting thing is that the word "hoplon" did have the meaning of a shield in general,and it did not only mean weapon or the hollite shield. Note he is using "επιμηκέστερα όπλα" for the other shields while saying "ασπίσιν αργολικαίς" for the hoplite shield,commonly also known as "hoplon".
Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

The term "aspisin Argolikais" at the time of Plutrarch might have meant just round shields.

We all visualize the heavy hoplite shields as big and hay base on Archaic Classical descriptions and art. There is no guarantee that the term meant the same thing at the Hellenistic period

Hoplon is just any weapon. The classical hoplite shield was meant to be used as a weapon for shoving off opposition and can be reffered to as a "weapon".

So most probably the Acheans were last to convert to pikemen.
They couldn't have lasted in the open field against Macedonians otherwise

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Until the second century bc the hoplite shield was still in use,and also depicted in grave stones,such as this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elissacorsini/1110374607/
So why do you think argolic shield would mean whatever round shield?
Also,the word "pelte" was widely used for the round sarissophoroi shield.
I think he is nor indicating a reform in the direction of the macedonian phalanx,which has peltes and sarisae,but a reform pointing to the hoplite phalanx,with argolic shields and the "longer spear".Remember that the hoplite spear was considered "long" compared to other spears like the persian,for instance.
I wonder what kind of thorakes he equipted them with.Quilted,mail???
Perhaps by the time of Pausanias,hoplon was meaning shield.Of course I know the earlier meaning,Stefane,but the longer,lighter shields he is refering to,were not weapons to shove off the enemy.And most probably it kepr both meaning,but for example,saying only "hopla" one would understand "shields" while he wouldn't think of spears or swords in particular.
Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

This is a photo of "Tarentine" horsemen.
There is no evidence that even the horsemen of the Archaic period depicted as mounted hoplites carry shields of the same weight as infantry shields.

The persian spear was shorer than the Greek but there are limits to the spear length that can be balanced in one hand.

"Tou Xerxou grapsantos pempson ta hopla antegrapse molon lave".
Plutarch moralia "Laconian proverbs"
I do not thing that Plutarch means to surrender only the shields.

Plus "epimekestera hopla" in what context?

L. hate de êdê tôn Achaiôn aphorôntôn es auton kai ta panta ekeinon poioumenôn, tois tetagmenois autôn en tôi pezôi metebale tôn hoplôn tên skeuên: phorountas gar mikra doratia kai epimêkestera hopla kata tous Keltikous thureous ê ta gerra ta Persôn, epeise thôrakas te enduesthai kai epitithesthai knêmidas, pros de aspisin Argolikais chrêsthai kai tois dorasi megalois. [2] Machanidou de en Lakedaimoni anaphuntos turannou kai authis polemou tois Achaiois pros Lakedaimonious kai Machanidan sunestêkotos, hêgeito men tou Achaïkou Philopoimên: ginomenês de pros Mantineiai machês Lakedaimoniôn men hoi psiloi tous askeuous tôn Achaiôn nikôsi kai pheugousin autois epekeito ho Machanidas, têi de phalangi ho Philopoimên tôn pezôn trepetai tôn Lakedaimoniôn tous hoplitas kai anachôrounti apo tês diôxeôs Machanidai suntuchôn apoktinnusin auton.

Here he used the term hopla for shields in general.
Archaic Acheans had a hoplite class. Hellenistic Acheans had "regressed" into peltasts.
In the Hellenistic period after viewing Pyrrus and Antiochus pahalnxes ravaging Peloponessos I can reasonably accept rearming into hoplites.
He also new of Heronea and Megaolpolis.

Here he used the term hopla for shields in general.
Archaic Acheans had a hoplite class. Hellenistic Acheans had "regressed" into peltasts.

Plutrarch Phliopoimin 9, 10 also in army reformations

In the Hellenistic period after viewing Pyrrus and Antiochus pahalnxes ravaging Peloponessos I can reasonably accept rearming into hoplites.
He also knew of Heronea and Megaolpolis.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

There are almost idntical depictions in sculptures,like the one I posted,for infantry soldiers. You must have seen some in Amphipolis museum. Anyway,I do not deny the meaning "weapons" for "hopla" of course,I'm just pointing out that it had two different meanings after some point,like many modern words,too.
Wouldn't it be easier to say that he switched them to phalangites,like so many other hellenistic armies?This would emidiately mean longer spears and round (pelte) shields,instead of argolic shields. On the other hand,where there hoplite armies in the second and first centuries bc, or these were eliminated only in bodyguards and small units? And also we know that phalangites could fight in different formations,with different spear lengths. Could this imply that halangites could fight also as hoplites when needed?
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Gentlemen, before debate becomes too heated on this matter, it may be relevant to mention a few points.
First, Pausanias was living ina Roman Province, and probably came from Lydia.He wrote his 'Tour of Greece' between 174 and 180 A.D. He does not show particularly good classical or scholarly knowledge, and when writing of the past tends to rely on 'tradition' and 'what he was told'.

Second, the Achaean League at around this time went through many changes. For example under Aratus, an early leader of the League it fielded barely 10,000 troops in 245 B.C. By 228 B.C. it could field 20,000. Initially, the army of the League consisted of citizens and mercenaries, equipped as Thureophroi ( i.e. Pausanias' 'long narrow shield' equals thureos, and thureophroi, with celtic style oval shields performed the function of earlier peltasts.)A force of 3,000 citizen foot and 300 citizen horse took the field under Philopoemen as Macedonian Allies against the Spartans at the battle of Sellasia in 222B.C. - plus a force of 1,000 Megalopolitan exiles equipped in the Macedonian manner(i.e. as heavy infantry sarissaphroi).Megalopolis was not technically a part of the League, but joined later. By 219 B.C. this force became a standing Army of the 3,000 citizen Infantry and 300 citizen cavalry, plus 8,000 mercenary foot and 500 mercenary horse.The army now included 500 Megalapolitan heavy infantry phalangites. In 208 B.C. Philopoemen re-organised the rest of the citizen infantry as Macedonian sarissaphroi. .The Achaean citizen infantry are hereafter referred to as 'peltasts' ( by Polybius, and caetrati), a direct latin translation in Livy). Philopoemen also reformed the Cavalry arm and re-organised it.

Third,It should be noted that Macedonian style sarissaphroi are often referred to as 'hoplites', and that Macedonian style shields are often referred to as 'Aspides' as well as 'Peltai' and that Greeks might prefer the term 'dorasi megalois' to the more uncouth Macedonian sarissa !!


[/i]

[MeinPanzer]

This is a photo of "Tarentine" horsemen.
There is no evidence that even the horsemen of the Archaic period depicted as mounted hoplites carry shields of the same weight as infantry shields.

No, those are standard heavy cavalrymen of the later Hellenistic period from Cyzicus, and not Tarantine cavalrymen. There are other examples showing cavalrymen carrying even larger shields, and there is absolutely no reason to think that they differed from regular hoplite shields.

[hoplite14gr]

I used quotes to describe them. Usually shielded Hellenistic cavalry are described as "Tarentines".

Yes I agree that even larger shields could be used but generally cavalry shields tend to be lighter that infantry shields. and the infantry hoplite shields tended to be heavy unless there is evidence that Helenistic hoplite type shield was lighter than the classical. (And we dont know if classical shields were all heavy.)

Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

I used quotes to describe them. Usually shielded Hellenistic cavalry are described as "Tarentines".

Tarantines were a special kind of shielded Hellenistic cavalry (according to Asclepiodotus) and by no means were all shielded Hellenistic cavalry Tarantines. From the very end of the third or beginning of the second century BC, Hellenistic lancer cavalrymen came to use the very large round shield, and they can by no means be termed Tarantines.

Yes I agree that even larger shields could be used but generally cavalry shields tend to be lighter that infantry shields. and the infantry hoplite shields tended to be heavy unless there is evidence that Helenistic hoplite type shield was lighter than the classical. (And we dont know if classical shields were all heavy.)

There is simply no reason to think that a hoplite shield carried by a cavalryman which is the exact same form and size as an average infantryman's would somehow be lighter. To think otherwise makes little sense.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul M,how do you explain the term "argive" for shields other than the hoplites' shields? Should we now reconsider our meaning of the word "argive shield" ?.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

One thing that I find interesting is that according to Plutarch, Philopoemen specifically changed the shields because the thureos was too narrow. Surely a pelta is no wider, though perhaps a fairer construct of his arguement treats the pelta and body armor as a single entity in replacing the thin shields.

There surely were still hoplites near this date, since most of the Spartan citizenry were so equipped at Sellasia, so the true argive aspis can't be ruled out.

Paul M. What is the source and date of the Ptolemaic donative of shields? Its a bit odd that the young men who were melting down their silver to stud their shields and gild their breast-plates, would need a donation of peltae. This is very important, since if the reform predates the donative, then they probably were not using peltae, or why should they need them? If the donative came first, then Philopoemen's reforms are in large part due to Ptolemy!

There is an odd possibility that he reformed them into hoplites, then re-reformed, at least some of them, as sarissaphoroi not long after.

[MeinPanzer]

Paul M. What is the source and date of the Ptolemaic donative of shields? Its a bit odd that the young men who were melting down their silver to stud their shields and gild their breast-plates, would need a donation of peltae. This is very important, since if the reform predates the donative, then they probably were not using peltae, or why should they need them? If the donative came first, then Philopoemen's reforms are in large part due to Ptolemy!

The citation is Polybius XXII.9.3.

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:-

Paul M,how do you explain the term "argive" for shields other than the hoplites' shields? Should we now reconsider our meaning of the word "argive shield" ?.

...I don't know why Pausanias says 'argive' which we have come to associate with the classical 'aspis'.Perhaps he was 'showing off' by using a classical term he was not familiar with, perhaps he genuinely thought 'argive' was an epithet for round, and lastly, if he did, perhaps he was right! ( i.e. the only shields in use in classical times were either 'pelati' or 'aspides', and since all 'aspides' were round.....
At all events, I don't think we need revise our meanings on the strength of a single use by a single author....

Paul B. wrote:-

There surely were still hoplites near this date, since most of the Spartan citizenry were so equipped at Sellasia, so the true argive aspis can't be ruled out.

........ a slip of the memory here, I think, Paul - since as you know all too well, as part of Kleomenes reforms, he re-armed the Spartan army in 'Macedonian fashion' - i.e. as sarissaphroi

Ruben wrote:-

The citation is Polybius XXII.9.3.

.......many thanks Ruben ! D

[PMBardunias]

........ a slip of the memory here, I think, Paul - since as you know all too well, as part of Kleomenes reforms, he re-armed the Spartan army in 'Macedonian fashion' - i.e. as sarissaphroi

As far as I am aware, the general consensus is that Cleomenes only armed his new-made troops, those that end up stationed with him on the right at sellasia, as Sarissaphoroi.

That donative of Peltae from Ptolemy comes long after Philopoemen's reforms, so no help in deciding either way for the initial reform.