Thermopylae 480BC (Great Battles of the World)

[Ghostmojo]

There are two types here though, aren't there Mark? There is the well known 'elongated' Boiotian form which is more of a lozenge shape with its cut outs in the straight sections. And then there is the one which looks like a modified aspis. I struggle to see why any artist would create such a form purely and solely for artistic licence. It seems too precise by nature. I suppose it could be a one-off that some hoplite had used - possibly the best job at repairing a damaged shield, but it looks too contrived for that. It looks like it was designed with a purpose in mind. What that purpose is, is anybody's guess.

Given that so much else detail on the pottery is often taken as being accurate representations of equipment - helmets; scabbards; linothoraxes; breat plates etc. - then does it not stand to reason that these artists would most often just be reproducing what they saw - including shields? Following that logic both Boiotian proper and Boiotian/Argive hybrid may well be completely valid, rather than anachronisms as claimed by many scholars.

I'm inclined to wonder if, whilst generally falling from favour, the Boiotian shield survived and continued to be used by some - even if not the majority. I also wonder if the circular hybrid was some kind of 'link' between the Boiotian proper and the aspis; merely designed to continue the styling of one into the other.

Given the Boiotian itself was possibly a link in the chain from earlier dark age models like the dipylon towards the archaic/classical Argive type - there is no reason not to allow for the possibility of this hybrid also being part of that chain.

Knowing there is the practical realisation by many hoplites that an apron suspended from their aspis/hoplon was a useful additional protection for the upper legs, might not some have thought that the Boiotian proper afforded the very same kind of protection? That doesn't of course explain the hybrid which seems the least useful of all of them...

The more I think about either of them, the more I am convinced the 'cuts' were to allow a spear through. We see various forms of pelta, also with a single cut - and I see no reason why the purpose wasn't the same. In close order advancing, the spear in either underhand thrust, or overhand thrust would neatly project through the shield depending upon how the shield was raised or lowered.