Macedonians used leather helmets?

[Paullus Scipio]

Here are some interesting quotes from a report on Thracian tomb findings ( since Archibald)

Above the entrance, there were paintings of a quiver and a leather helmet of the so-called Phrygian / Thracian type.

and this rather tantalising...

Of special interest, and much easier to read, are the paintings in the dromos. It is a historical scene, showing the meeting of Thracian and Macedonian armies. Specific elements of local military costumes can be seen, but the iconography as a whole is traditional and refers, to mythological battle scenes.

Little of military significance occurs in the rest of the report, which concerns Thracian belief systems and tomb decoration, but for those interested it can be found here......

http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/ ... 07010.html

[MeinPanzer]

But neither chlamys nor krepides are unique to Macedonia, being commonly worn throughout Greece at the time (though the kausia would seem to be)......

It's clearly implied that the Macedonian chlamys is being referred to, which was semi-circular in shape and uniquely Macedonian. And as I stated before, the krepides are not uniquely Macedonian, but they are a part of the triad of Macedonian items of costume. There are numerous other references which can be found in Saatsoglou-Paliadeli's "Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume," Journal of Hellenic Studies 113 (1993) pp. 122-147.

At any rate, it doesn't even matter if the chlamys and krepides weren't uniquely Macedonian, as the only thing that matters is that Caracalla thought that these pieces of equipment and costume were used by Alexander's troops. A bronze shield isn't unique either, but they clearly had reason to think that Alexander's phalangites carried bronze shields.

nevertheless, I would agree with you that Plutarch may be referring to a type of Macedonian civilian 'national costume', and this possibly influenced Caraccalla's ideas.....

It's not just Plutarch here, there are numerous authors who mention this national costume. See the abovementioned article.

Certainly, the tomb paintings such as the 3 C BC Bella tumulus (which Giannis refers to) and the late 4 C BC Lefkadia tomb show krepides, but these are clearly High-ranking Officers (judging by 'purple' trimmed/'purple' cloaks and 'purple' trimmed armour) - and are mostly later than Alexander's day(like Plutarch's reference).

Firstly, how many depictions of common Macedonian troops do we have? Secondly, I doubt that a few years after Alexander's death, the 'national costume' of the Macedonians would be abandoned, especially considering that it was around well before Alexander according to archaeological and literary evidence (once again, I would refer you to the article mentioned above).

If we look at more contemporary ( to Alexander's day) depictions, we don't see krepides (which you might expect to be costly aristocratic items), such as the so-called 'Alexander sarcophagus', where bare feet (possibly with painted-on footwear) is the norm,

The Macedonian troops on the sarcophagus who weren't depicted as being heroically naked had high boots painted on their feet.

but best of all is the late 4 C Agios Athanasios tomb painting showing what are most likely Macedonian ( some wear kausias!) rank-and-file soldiers (no less than 8 of them!), none of whom wear krepides, all being shown in open sandals....

Those are krepides- they are high boots reaching above the ankle. It doesn't matter if they are made of openwork sandals around a sock or a closed boot- please post the definitive source that states that krepides cannot be sandalwork.

Well, I could point to Polybius' famous description of the 'scutum' as an example

Which he states in a much longer technical passage which deals in the exacting dimensions and qualities of Roman arms.

but in general you are right.....certainly when it comes to classical greek sources....and that is what makes me think that Caracalla, actually equipped his Phalanx with 'bronze' shields, as described by Dio, possibly in the mistaken belief that they were all bronze.

This passage from Dio, while clearly concerned with some details which were unusual in his day (ox-hide helmets, linen corselets), felt no need to describe the shield as being bronze on wood. Come to think of it, have there ever been examples of widely-used shields made only of metal in the Graeco-Roman world? Shields always have some sort of organic backing- be it wicker, leather, or wood- which would make it unnecessary to qualify a statement like "bronze shield," even in the 2nd c. AD.

OTOH one might have thought that some real Macedonian shields ought to have still been around in temples in Caracalla's day....so you may well be right, and that the shields carried were accurate replicas.Impossible to know, alas! Sad

Karunanithy writes about this a bit- it seems very likely that Caracalla would have had access to not only many more actual or figural examples of Macedonian arms than we do (especially paintings), but also many more literary sources as well. And considering his obsession with Alexander, he surely would have been well-read and familiar with `his`arms and armour.

Here are some interesting quotes from a report on Thracian tomb findings ( since Archibald)

I've not heard of the first mention (sounds promising), but the second is just referring to the well-known scenes from the Kazanluk paintings, with the incorrect assumption that the figures wearing kausiai are Macedonians. I've discussed this with Christopher Webber a bit, but the main gist of the discussion boils down to that the kausia seems to have been transmitted to non-Macedonian peoples in the southeastern Balkans as a sign of authority after their contact with the Macedonians.

[Paullus Scipio]

We seem to be digressing ever more! :?

I will not respond in detail, not least because I believe we are in concord more than not, and differ only in detail or degree.....

Caracalla's 'Macedonian phalanx' may well preserve some genuine details, including 'Leather', or rather Rawhide, helmets

Everything discussed here by us is the subject of debate....many scholars believe there is no evidence of the 'kausia' being worn before Alexander, for example,( so hardly 'traditional' Macedonian) and some statues of Hellenistic kings, the Herculaeum 'horned ruler' for example, are shown nude but with chlamys (rectangular in this instance, not semi circular BTW!) and krepides boots to indicate "Macedonian"...shown as going well up the calf, more or less solid laced boots as are those on the two tomb depictions I referred to......and very different from the 'Agios' open sandals coming barely over the ankles....they are so different from each other that both cannot be 'krepides'
Here is a definition:
"There is some debate as to what sort of shoe the krepida was. They are generally referred to as some form of thick soled boot/shoe that is laced up.
Shoes which covered more of the foot than did the simple thonged soleae/sandal. The krepidae are boots/half-shoes with soles to which an upper of leather was attached, enclosing the heel and the sides of the foot, were fastened across the instep by straps or bands laced through holes set in the side pieces, sometimes had straps but most often sported high up on the foot and calf a complex network of cutwork designs."

...which is not at all what the 'Agios soldiers' wear.....( a type of ankle length sandal, of straps, not cutwork) but once again a potential subject of debate!

Come to think of it, have there ever been examples of widely-used shields made only of metal in the Graeco-Roman world?

...uu..mm, yes, actually - early Villanovan round shields have their handles directly affixed to the bronze back, for example( and for that reason have been sometimes dismissed as parade/votive shields, but I am not so sure.....)

[hoplite14gr]

Just because a chlamys is identified as "macedonian" or "thessalian" or just because petassos is identified as "thessalian" or boots are identified as "thracian" that does not mean that they were not used in other areas.

Ancients said: PENIA TECHNAS APERGAZETAI where PENIA has the meaning of necesity rather than poverty.

Plus some of the names (not all ) are neologisms used by scholars to ease their study.

Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

Everything discussed here by us is the subject of debate....

Of course it is the subject of debate. Every little thing in ancient history is the subject of debate. That doesn't mean that there isn't one argument which is strongest or most plausible (and in this case, there is).

many scholars believe there is no evidence of the 'kausia' being worn before Alexander, for example,( so hardly 'traditional' Macedonian)

And Saatsoglou-Paliadeli argues strongly against these scholars in her abovementioned article, which cites some literary passages, often ignored, referring to the kausia being worn before Alexander's campaign.
Notably: Polyaenus 5.44.5, in which the kausia is worn by troops in 336 BC to trick their enemy into thinking they are Macedonian allies.

and some statues of Hellenistic kings, the Herculaeum 'horned ruler' for example, are shown nude but with chlamys (rectangular in this instance, not semi circular BTW!) and krepides boots to indicate "Macedonian"...shown as going well up the calf, more or less solid laced boots as are those on the two tomb depictions I referred to......and very different from the 'Agios' open sandals coming barely over the ankles....they are so different from each other that both cannot be 'krepides'

Firstly, I'm not familiar with the Herculaneum statue you're referring to (could you perhaps post a picture?). Secondly, there is no


Both can be krepides in the same way that a Thracian's crescent wicker shield and a Macedonian phalangite's round bronze shield can both be peltai: the definition is not a rigid one, and probably changed over time and from place to place.

Here is a definition:
"There is some debate as to what sort of shoe the krepida was. They are generally referred to as some form of thick soled boot/shoe that is laced up.
Shoes which covered more of the foot than did the simple thonged soleae/sandal. The krepidae are boots/half-shoes with soles to which an upper of leather was attached, enclosing the heel and the sides of the foot, were fastened across the instep by straps or bands laced through holes set in the side pieces, sometimes had straps but most often sported high up on the foot and calf a complex network of cutwork designs."

...which is not at all what the 'Agios soldiers' wear.....( a type of ankle length sandal, of straps, not cutwork) but once again a potential subject of debate!

The bit about the upper leather enclosing heel and shins comes form Xenophon's "Peri Hippikes," which is firstly prescriptive (this follows the passage in which he recommends that Athenian cavalry should wear parameridia) and secondly non-Macedonian. More general definitions, such as that of the Suda, defnie it as something with a thick sole that holds the feet, deriving from its primary definition as groundwork, foundation. Otherwise its general meaning came to be simply soldier's boot or half-boot, which is what LSJ defines it as. There is no reason to think that a high sandalwork boot with a thick sock couldn't be a krepis.

...uu..mm, yes, actually - early Villanovan round shields have their handles directly affixed to the bronze back, for example( and for that reason have been sometimes dismissed as parade/votive shields, but I am not so sure.....)

Okay, so in the early first millennium BC. Any from the latter half?

[Paullus Scipio]

And Saatsoglou-Paliadeli argues strongly against these scholars in her abovementioned article, which cites some literary passages, often ignored, referring to the kausia being worn before Alexander's campaign.
Notably: Polyaenus 5.44.5, in which the kausia is worn by troops in 336 BC to trick their enemy into thinking they are Macedonian allies.

...to which those scholars would suggest Polyaenus was being anachronistic, and point to the fact that the same incident (Memnon's near capture of Cyzicus) is referred to by Diodorus (XVII.7.8 ) with nary a mention of Macedonian caps/kausia :lol: :lol:
...at least we agree virtually everything is debateable !! 8)

Otherwise its general meaning came to be simply soldier's boot or half-boot, which is what LSJ defines it as.

So you would define 'krepides' as any ( thick-soled?)footwear worn by a soldier? In that case how can all these different styles of footwear be distinctly Macedonian? ....same question if the word changed meaning.....

But let us agree to differ in these details....since we broadly agree on the subject matter of the post......I'll try to find a picture of the Herculaeum statuette for you.....

Okay, so in the early first millennium BC. Any from the latter half?

A....www, now you are making it tough ! Have to think hard. :? ) lol:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7854534@N0 ... 0/sizes/o/
From Philip's tomb. It's reversed,for some reason.

[Paullus Scipio]

Isn't that Lion-Hunting scene one of the main arguments (artistically) for the tomb being that of Philip Arrhidaeus ( Alexander's half-brother), thus after Alexander......

Boy, are we getting off-topic here! ?

[MeinPanzer]

...to which those scholars would suggest Polyaenus was being anachronistic, and point to the fact that the same incident (Memnon's near capture of Cyzicus) is referred to by Diodorus (XVII.7.8 ) with nary a mention of Macedonian caps/kausia :lol: :lol:
...at least we agree virtually everything is debateable !! 8)

I would disagree because Diodorus was not discussing tactics while Polyaenus was, yadda yadda yadda, but then that debate comes to an end. Nonetheless, this is not germane to the topic at hand. The main point is that you stated that in that passage of Cassius Dio, there is some reason to believe that some of the items he lists as being used by Alexander's phalangites are inaccurate. So, getting to the core of the issue, let's deal with these items one by one.

The first two, the "helmet of raw ox-hide" and the "three-ply linen breastplate" the archaeological record is silent about and the evidence from the literary record is scant and of little help. However, if the former is taken to be referring to the kausia, which is possible, then it is fairly clear. The "Garland of Philip" by Antipater calls the kausia a "helmet in war" and mentions it as being "from olden times the Macedonian's comfortable gear." The personified kausia itself further declares "I come from Emathia," the ancient heart of the Macedonian state in which the capital was located.

The bronze shield (aspis chalke) is fairly straightforward. Asclepiodotus (5.1) describes the phalangite shield as "bronze, eight palms (~24 inches) in diameter, and not too concave"- notice that despite the fact that he is writing a technical manual, he states nothing of the wooden backing. (BTW, I received your PM about Asclepiodotus and I was going to respond to you but I had to do a number of things; I'll shoot you a PM shortly.) Other finds of actual coverings for Macedonian shields are likewise bronze.

Long pike is straightforward.

Short spear is somewhat controversial, but nonetheless there is a body of literary evidence to support it. The archaeological record is, as far as I am aware, silent on the issue because we simply don't have any confirmed finds of complete phalangite panoplies.

Krepides, of whatever form they may have been, are recognized as being distinctly Macedonian. The literary record presents us with the excerpt of Plutarch above as well as the description in Theocritus (15.1) as the Ptolemaic troops in Alexandria being "all krepides, all chlamus-wearing men," and archaeological evidence shows Macedonians wearing sturdy high boots, whether they be of open sandalwork or leather.

Sword is straightforward.

So, what we have is a few areas in which the archaeological and literary records are silent for the most part, whereas the rest are either verified or at least suggested to be true. Therefore, this lends some credence to the use of leather headgear by Macedonians as well as linen cuirasses.

So you would define 'krepides' as any ( thick-soled?)footwear worn by a soldier? In that case how can all these different styles of footwear be distinctly Macedonian? ....same question if the word changed meaning.....

According to the ancient evidence, yes. How can they be distinctly Macedonian? They aren't unique to the Macedonians, but as a part of the trio of krepides, chlamus, and kausia they are distinctly Macedonian. Much like the Macedonian shield is distinctively Macedonian when combined with the sarissa, even though we find it being employed by various other peoples in different capacities.

Isn't that Lion-Hunting scene one of the main arguments (artistically) for the tomb being that of Philip Arrhidaeus ( Alexander's half-brother), thus after Alexander......

Boy, are we getting off-topic here! Sad Confused

But would you call those krepides? The men wear kausiai and Macedonian chlamudes and the boots are all literally the exact same high openwork sandals that are seen on the Agios Athanasios tomb paintings (even down to the gap at the top between the top of the sandalwork and the top of the sock) and are very similar to the boots worn by the Macedonian troops on the Alexander sarcophagus who wear footwear.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Isn't that Lion-Hunting scene one of the main arguments (artistically) for the tomb being that of Philip Arrhidaeus ( Alexander's half-brother), thus after Alexander......

Boy, are we getting off-topic here! ?

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 don't know what Krepides is,I just posted it because it shows clearly what was worn.
Khaire
Giannis

[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.......

[Paullus Scipio]

Here are a couple of statuettes, one I referred to earlier from the Naples Museum (Herculaneum) and another from the British Museum...

Note that chlamys in both cases appears rectangular rather than semi-circular ( corners)...

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I hadn't seen that from Herculaneum! It's great! have you got a higher resolution image?
Caracalla's ewuipment was propaganda. You don't need to be accurate for this. You just need anyone THINK OF what you're presenting,in this case,Alexander's troops. It has a significance that he equiped them this way,only because it shows what was the comon perception of what these famous heroes looked like. Also, leather helmets must have been much cheaper,thus you can use them and produce them massively with lower cost,and if everyone believe this is what macedonians looked like,that's it! Similar to modern bad re-enacting. It's wrong to investigate and compare our original archaeological sources with how Caracalla equiped his soldiers,and try to find that thet were indeed equiped identically like that,or if they didn't(and of course they didn't), dismiss Caracalla's soliers as completely inaccurate.I can't resist here to mention again the perception of macedonian "linen corslets"
Khaire
Giannis

[Timotheus]

And with lack of archaeology,too... :roll:
Is he saying LINEN cuirasses,though? WHERE IS PAULUS :?: :lol:
Khairete
Giannis

True they lacked archaeology. But they had access to litterally hundreds if not thousands of sources that are long gone and we dont even know about to miss them.

Archaeology is great but it is the needle in the haystack. Digging into prepared graves will tell you what people chose to bury someone in. Not what they wore day to day. Context can be just as misleading in archaeology as it can be in ancient text sources.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Take a look
http://flickr.com/photos/44124324682@N0 ... 9/sizes/o/
It says: "Bronze stauette of rider (possibly Alexander the Great) wearing an elephant skin Greek Hellenistic 3rd century BCE from Athribis in the Nile Delta Egypt"
Sandal boots with socks?
Khairete
Giannis