Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx

[PMBardunias]

Filling up the body of citizens with the most promising of the perioikoi he created 4,000 hoplites, teaching them to use the sarisa with both hands and to bear shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax.

I see no reason to believe that this indicates a lack of porpax, only a shift in bearing the weight with the strap as opposed to holding it on the arm. Below are some images one of our members took at Ephesos, the very concave shields look as similar to the only actual depiction of sarissaphoroi that we have as you could want. Remember that they would have to use these shields with a sword at times, so a single grip at the edge would not be sufficient.

As to how and if they could hold the sarissa when holding such a shield I can't say. Perhaps as you say the porpax was not used at this point in the fight- fighting in this way would be something that had to be "taught" as in the quote above.. I even have my doubts about the almost ubiquitous pose of the sarissaphoroi in modern depictions- side-on, with the pelta basically facing to the left. It is not what is shone- the peltae are clearly facing forward, though that is about the only thing clear in how they are held. There is also Plutarch's description of Pydna:

"The battle being begun, Aemilius came in and found that the foremost of the Macedonians had already fixed the ends of their spears into the shields of his Romans, so that it was impossible to come near them with their swords. When he saw this, and observed that the rest of the Macedonians took the targets that hung on their left shoulders, and brought them round before them, and all at once stooped their pikes against their enemies' shields, and considered the great strength of this wall of shields, and the formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms, he was seized with amazement and alarm; nothing he had ever seen before had been equal to it;

"Round before them" to make a "wall of shields" does not fit well with the common pose to me. Then there is the question of what happened when two phalanxes clashed. I assume the shield had some use or they could have just left it on their back until the lines broke up. My guess is that both phalanxes ended up with sarissa "fixed" in their peltae just as the romans did. Maybe the side-on pose with the shield facing the side was used when the extreme 1.5 foot spacing occurred.

[MeinPanzer]

Filling up the body of citizens with the most promising of the perioikoi he created 4,000 hoplites, teaching them to use the sarisa with both hands and to bear shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax.

I see no reason to believe that this indicates a lack of porpax, only a shift in bearing the weight with the strap as opposed to holding it on the arm.

As I stated, I don't take this necessarily to mean that they removed the porpakes from their shields, but it certainly does mean that in order to wield their sarissae two-handed, they did not use them.

Below are some images one of our members took at Ephesos, the very concave shields look as similar to the only actual depiction of sarissaphoroi that we have as you could want.

Note also that that phalangite in the rear on the Pergamon battle plaque carries a shield with an offset rim as large as on most Argive shields.

Remember that they would have to use these shields with a sword at times, so a single grip at the edge would not be sufficient.

And why could they not fight with their swords with a shield suspended by a grip at the edge and a strap? We know that phalangites weren't very effective in close combat, and maybe this is one of the reasons why.

As to how and if they could hold the sarissa when holding such a shield I can't say. Perhaps as you say the porpax was not used at this point in the fight- fighting in this way would be something that had to be "taught" as in the quote above.. I even have my doubts about the almost ubiquitous pose of the sarissaphoroi in modern depictions- side-on, with the pelta basically facing to the left. It is not what is shone- the peltae are clearly facing forward, though that is about the only thing clear in how they are held.

The artist who made (or copied) the battle plaque was clearly unsure of how to depict the phalangites holding their shields - hence why the sarissa actually runs on the other side of the shield - so I don't think we can read too much into it.

There is also Plutarch's description of Pydna:

"The battle being begun, Aemilius came in and found that the foremost of the Macedonians had already fixed the ends of their spears into the shields of his Romans, so that it was impossible to come near them with their swords. When he saw this, and observed that the rest of the Macedonians took the targets that hung on their left shoulders, and brought them round before them, and all at once stooped their pikes against their enemies' shields, and considered the great strength of this wall of shields, and the formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms, he was seized with amazement and alarm; nothing he had ever seen before had been equal to it;

"Round before them" to make a "wall of shields" does not fit well with the common pose to me.

Then there is the question of what happened when two phalanxes clashed. I assume the shield had some use or they could have just left it on their back until the lines broke up. My guess is that both phalanxes ended up with sarissa "fixed" in their peltae just as the romans did. Maybe the side-on pose with the shield facing the side was used when the extreme 1.5 foot spacing occurred.

I'm curious then, what you would suggest their stance was? It seems like your repertoire as a warrior is somewhat limited by carrying a long pike in a very tight formation.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Filling up the body of citizens with the most promising of the perioikoi he created 4,000 hoplites, teaching them to use the sarisa with both hands and to bear shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax.

"The battle being begun, Aemilius came in and found that the foremost of the Macedonians had already fixed the ends of their spears into the shields of his Romans, so that it was impossible to come near them with their swords. When he saw this, and observed that the rest of the Macedonians took the targets that hung on their left shoulders, and brought them round before them, and all at once stooped their pikes against their enemies' shields, and considered the great strength of this wall of shields, and the formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms, he was seized with amazement and alarm; nothing he had ever seen before had been equal to it;

"Round before them" to make a "wall of shields" does not fit well with the common pose to me. Then there is the question of what happened when two phalanxes clashed. I assume the shield had some use or they could have just left it on their back until the lines broke up. My guess is that both phalanxes ended up with sarissa "fixed" in their peltae just as the romans did. Maybe the side-on pose with the shield facing the side was used when the extreme 1.5 foot spacing occurred.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I understood the top passage to refer to the Roman shields (the wall refered to)being pierced and held back from closing with the phalanx, in a frontal formation against formation confrontation.
But I don't see the reference to the Macedonian phalanx forming a "wall of sheilds". :?
Only that they were in formation with rear pikes angled up, so perhaps the 'targets/shields' need to be in position to enable the lowering of the pikes.

[PMBardunias]

As I stated, I don't take this necessarily to mean that they removed the porpakes from their shields, but it certainly does mean that in order to wield their sarissae two-handed, they did not use them.

I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant that only some shields still had porpaxes.

Note also that that phalangite in the rear on the Pergamon battle plaque carries a shield with an offset rim as large as on most Argive shields.

well, I'm not sure I'd classify that as an off-set rim- more a dubiously complex curve in the shield face- but the shields are definitely in the range of aspis sizes.
When we are told that the best peltae are not too deep or large, this implies to me that some were.

And why could they not fight with their swords with a shield suspended by a grip at the edge and a strap? We know that phalangites weren't very effective in close combat, and maybe this is one of the reasons why.

Getting killed for want of a proper grip is not likely to remain in fashion long. Considering that a porpax could be a cheap leather loop, there would need to be a compelling reason to remove it. like it got in the way somehow.

The artist who made (or copied) the battle plaque was clearly unsure of how to depict the phalangites holding their shields - hence why the sarissa actually runs on the other side of the shield - so I don't think we can read too much into it.

Iagree with you, but what evidence is there that they didn't hold it that way??? Lack of evidence is a huge problem with this. Why would the artist make such a mistake? Perhaps if the memory of his sources stressed the sight of a phalanx of bronze shields coming forward in front of each phalangite- not off to the side- he drew it in a way that left the ornate shield face unobstructed.

I'm curious then, what you would suggest their stance was? It seems like your repertoire as a warrior is somewhat limited by carrying a long pike in a very tight formation.

The most common stance of warriors. As on the plaque, 3/4 forward when standing, and shoulders, toes and hips forward when moving, same as hoplites (who I written before didn't stand in the stylized completely sideways, perpendicular, stance for a variety of reasons). When moving, the left arm holding the sarissa at or near its balance point would be across the front of the torso, the hand just right of the body. The right hand to the rear pivoting the sarissa on the lever of its rear length. The strap greatly aids the front arm in this position. Because the shoulders are more frontal, the shield can be in front of the phalangite.

Try this with any weight: hold it right next to your body and hold it a few feet away- closer is always easier. The reason that some find carrying the weight easier with the hands away from the body is that they make an "A" frame of their arms, the weight hanging on extended limbs as opposed to being held up in bent arms. This works well for holding, but severely limits the range of motion for a strike since the arms are already so extended.

A problem with all of these discussions of posture is that they are very easy to transition between and may be simply snapshots with a sequence of motions. For example, if the phalangite above simply extends his left arm and leg forward, pushing off the right leg, he is in a full side-on stance. But just as we would not describe a fencer as "standing" in the full extension of the lunge we have to be careful with these poses as well.

[PMBardunias]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I understood the top passage to refer to the Roman shields (the wall refered to)being pierced and held back from closing with the phalanx, in a frontal formation against formation confrontation.

I think the linking of these two phrases makes it clear that he is referring to the Macedonians. Whomever is the "wall" is also "bristling with arms". Why would he be alarmed at the impressiveness of a roman shield wall? The author is describing the innefectiveness of the Romans against the phalanx, so suddenly praising the strength of their "wall" would be odd. The picture the author paints is that they: Brought round their peltae, lowered their sarissa, thus looked like a wall bristling with weapons.

brought them round before them, and all at once stooped their pikes against their enemies' shields, and considered the great strength of this wall of shields, and the formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK, I had read it as him being amazed at the great strength of the roman shield wall, and alarmed at the bristling
weapons of the phalanx.
It appears as though the Romans were being held back, where usually they steamrollered their adversaries, untill this occurred. That was how I read it originally anyhoo....funny how a shift of emphasis alters your perception of a written passage....i wonder if i should re read a few more sources, again... :roll:

[PMBardunias]

funny how a shift of emphasis alters your perception of a written passage

Yea, we all do this. I've been reading a number of authors recently who in writing on how hoplites fought start with the premise that they stood perpendicular to their opponents as a given and then need to explain features that are obvious if they stood at a 3/4-frontal stance. Worse, they use the perpendicular pose analyze other data, as in "since we know they stood perpendicular then...". I posted this a while back, but it is always good to be clear on terms, so this is a comparison of hoplite stances (it is my adulteration of Paul's diagram of a hoplite spear thrust to show the side on stance in comparison):

[MeinPanzer]

I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant that only some shields still had porpaxes.

I do think this!

well, I'm not sure I'd classify that as an off-set rim- more a dubiously complex curve in the shield face- but the shields are definitely in the range of aspis sizes.

Perhaps offset is the wrong term to use. Let's just say that it has a fairly wide projecting rim like Argive shields did.

When we are told that the best peltae are not too deep or large, this implies to me that some were.

I absolutely agree, and I think that's one of the most important pieces of evidence in this debate.

Getting killed for want of a proper grip is not likely to remain in fashion long. Considering that a porpax could be a cheap leather loop, there would need to be a compelling reason to remove it. like it got in the way somehow.

How difficult is it to go from bearing a shield with a strap and a small loop near the rim to only carrying the shield with a porpax and using the loop near the rim as an antilabe when confronted by an enemy in close combat? Seems like it could be a very awkward transition to me, which may have been why some soldiers just fought with their shields as they were.

Iagree with you, but what evidence is there that they didn't hold it that way??? Lack of evidence is a huge problem with this. Why would the artist make such a mistake? Perhaps if the memory of his sources stressed the sight of a phalanx of bronze shields coming forward in front of each phalangite- not off to the side- he drew it in a way that left the ornate shield face unobstructed.

Right off the bat, I am dubious of taking any sort of tactical detail from artistic representations. We have centuries and centuries of art depicting hoplites, and yet how many depictions of the actual phalanx in formation do we have? And of those that we do have, as you have stated, we have many problems with interpreting them. By comparison, we have barely a century and a half of the widespread use of the Macedonian phalanx and only a few scraps of art. Then there is the fact that it would be physically impossible (or at least extremely awkward) to bear a large, round shield and a sarissa in the manner that the foremost phalangite is - despite the fact that he is holding it with his left hand, it runs behind the shield itself.

The most common stance of warriors. As on the plaque, 3/4 forward when standing, and shoulders, toes and hips forward when moving, same as hoplites (who I written before didn't stand in the stylized completely sideways, perpendicular, stance for a variety of reasons). When moving, the left arm holding the sarissa at or near its balance point would be across the front of the torso, the hand just right of the body. The right hand to the rear pivoting the sarissa on the lever of its rear length. The strap greatly aids the front arm in this position. Because the shoulders are more frontal, the shield can be in front of the phalangite.

Try this with any weight: hold it right next to your body and hold it a few feet away- closer is always easier. The reason that some find carrying the weight easier with the hands away from the body is that they make an "A" frame of their arms, the weight hanging on extended limbs as opposed to being held up in bent arms. This works well for holding, but severely limits the range of motion for a strike since the arms are already so extended.

I'm confused, as this is exactly the stance that Connolly takes when testing a sarissa and telamon shield in his article "Experiments with the Sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view," JRMES 11 (2000): 103-112 (fig. 9 shows him with the full setup).

[PMBardunias]

How difficult is it to go from bearing a shield with a strap and a small loop near the rim to only carrying the shield with a porpax and using the loop near the rim as an antilabe when confronted by an enemy in close combat? Seems like it could be a very awkward transition to me, which may have been why some soldiers just fought with their shields as they were.

Any transition problem would be preferable to a shield that is held at the edge and strapped to your neck in my opinion. What would be best if the porpax was not used would be a single, central grip- which then makes the shield much like the convex shields of Hoplomachus gladiators. If you can show how a strap and single grip near the rim could work well enough to not be abandoned with experience it would be interesting because those enigmatic Urartian shields have something like this- albeit with a solid hand-grip perpendicular to the rim.

Right off the bat, I am dubious of taking any sort of tactical detail from artistic representations.

You are preaching to the choir :wink:

Then there is the fact that it would be physically impossible (or at least extremely awkward) to bear a large, round shield and a sarissa in the manner that the foremost phalangite is - despite the fact that he is holding it with his left hand, it runs behind the shield itself.

As I said, I agree it is wrong. The question is why the artist got it wrong and can we deduce anything from the manner of his depiction.

I'm confused, as this is exactly the stance that Connolly takes when testing a sarissa and telamon shield in his article "Experiments with the Sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view," JRMES 11 (2000): 103-112 (fig. 9 shows him with the full setup).

Fig. 9 is pretty good. Reconciling that with fig. 7 or with the pose he has his son in in his article on Pydna is difficult. So frankly I'm not sure what he thinks. Fig 12 is the good because the men are not posing for a photo in what they think is the proper stance, they are moving and thus must be dynamic. The "proper" stance is someplace between fig. 9 and fig. 12. There are numerous problems with the illustration on the top of page 40 of the pydna article, but the shields facing forward seem correct to me.

[Paralus]

We have no evidence whatsoever that any of the shield types employed by the phalanx were equipped with the porpax, though this has often been stated in scholarly literature. On the other hand, we have this statement from Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes 9.2:

Filling up the body of citizens with the most promising of the perioikoi he created 4,000 hoplites, teaching them to use the sarisa with both hands and to bear shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax.

This is as explicit as any scholar could ever hope such a statement to be: in order for these men to use the sarissa with both hands, they were not to use the porpax but to use a strap which would pass around the shoulders [...] And once we accept that such shields were only suspended by a strap (and perhaps a small secondary strap through which passed the left wrist for added control), we have to realize that there was no need to place any restriction on the size of the shield, its concavity, or whether it had an offset rim or not.

Bingo. Add to that - as you've agreed - the fact that a porpax of some description (leather?) might have been kept for some shield types, we can likely see how Koinos' aesthetairoi are able to assault breaches in the wall at Tyre. Likely they are carrying their phalalngite shield (of whatever dimension) and either utilising the porpax (or not) whilst carrying the longhce or similar spear.

Paul B's quote from Plutarch's Paullus (19.2)...

And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their targets from their shoulders round in front of them, and with long spears set at one level were withstanding his shield-bearing troops, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful; often in after times he used to speak of his emotions at that time and of what he saw.

...might be that much clearer were Polybios' original to have survived. Somewhat unfortunately, we rely on the fellow who tells us that, at Cynoscephalae, Philip V ordered his phalanx to throw down their sarisae (because they were an impediment) - Livy.

The quotation needs to be read in context. That is, the battle commencement was not a planned matter rather an escaltion - on the Roman right - of what was a skirmish . From that initial skirmish the battle, as so often, took on a life of its own. Plutarch describes Paullus exiting his tent and Scipio Nasica riding out to find "that the whole force of the enemy was all but at close quarters".

As the battlefield was divided by a river and the initial onset was unplanned, the contact was unlikely to be general. Livy states there was a gap between the caetrati (likely Plutarch's "flower of the Macedonians") and the divisions of the phalanx. This would indicate that the Macedonian line was not entirely ready for the onset. Plutarch implies such when he describes that the phalanx units "issued from the camp" behind those already in line after the skirmish. Hence Paullus sees that the intial contact by units of the Macedonians has pinned his legionaries.

What next he sees is more likely the as yet to engage phalanx brigades lowering sariae and advancing to the attack. Hence the appearance of the slung shield "rotating around and down" with the movement down and forward of the arms?



Also, the battleground was divided by a river.

[MeinPanzer]

Paul B's quote from Plutarch's Paullus (19.2)...

And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their targets from their shoulders round in front of them, and with long spears set at one level were withstanding his shield-bearing troops, and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful; often in after times he used to speak of his emotions at that time and of what he saw.

...might be that much clearer were Polybios' original to have survived. Somewhat unfortunately, we rely on the fellow who tells us that, at Cynoscephalae, Philip V ordered his phalanx to throw down their sarisae (because they were an impediment) - Livy.

It's fairly certain that the details of the battle relayed by Plutarch were derived from Scipio Nasica's firsthand account, and so they can be taken as trustworthy.

What next he sees is more likely the as yet to engage phalanx brigades lowering sariae and advancing to the attack. Hence the appearance of the slung shield "rotating around and down" with the movement down and forward of the arms?

Nick Sekunda, whose analysis of the battle sounds the most convincing to me, asserts that the troops in the second line described as swinging their peltai around were peltasts following up the first line after their engagement with the Romans.

[PMBardunias]

What next he sees is more likely the as yet to engage phalanx brigades lowering sariae and advancing to the attack. Hence the appearance of the slung shield "rotating around and down" with the movement down and forward of the arms?

This was my reading as well, but either way- rear ranks or seperate units- the important point is that the shield was brought to the front of the body.

[Paralus]

It's fairly certain that the details of the battle relayed by Plutarch were derived from Scipio Nasica's firsthand account, and so they can be taken as trustworthy.

I'd agree that whilst Plutarch is working from both sources here - Nasica and Polibius - the battle detail is almost certainly Nasica's as it is extremely doubtful that Polybius was anywhere near this battle.

What next he sees is more likely the as yet to engage phalanx brigades lowering sariae and advancing to the attack. Hence the appearance of the slung shield "rotating around and down" with the movement down and forward of the arms?

Nick Sekunda, whose analysis of the battle sounds the most convincing to me, asserts that the troops in the second line described as swinging their peltai around were peltasts following up the first line after their engagement with the Romans.

Now that opens up the question of just what does one describe as a "peltast". In any case, it matters not: Plutarch clearly describes these forces as lowering their sarisae. They are phalangites no matter whether we term them that or "peltasts". To my reading there has been an "incremental" engagement. One side of the field is likely engaged before the other (or units). The battle detail is lost in Plutarch's very compressed narrative - remember, for this writer, Paraetecene was not worth recording - who is more interested in telling us about the man Paullus and his five sons. It is most likely that almost separate engagements were going on the field - particularly with a river between the combatants. The description of the Macedonian phalangites lowering sarisae from the near vertical to horizontal - and the "targets" or shields following round and forward - also speaks to an eye-witness.

[Paullus Scipio]

Personally, as I have indicated on another thread, I think Connolly ( and others) have it right......such little artistic evidence as we have ( mainly the (Aemilius Paullus monument) shows a rimless shield with both porpax and antilabe.......I don't know of any depiction (or any other evidence for that matter) which shows a sarissaphroi shield without a porpax and antilabe, so the existence of such a shield must remain pure speculation, as must a "large rimmed shield" for which there is almost no evidence either, other than the belt depiction which is artistically suspect anyway....

[MeinPanzer]

Personally, as I have indicated on another thread, I think Connolly ( and others) have it right......such little artistic evidence as we have ( mainly the (Aemilius Paullus monument) shows a rimless shield with both porpax and antilabe.......

And yet not with any sort of telamon, so how are we supposed to take that? Even so, as Plutarch's comment on Cleomenes III's reform shows, even if a shield had a porpax, in order for the men to use their sarissai two-handed, they did not use them.

I don't know of any depiction (or any other evidence for that matter) which shows a sarissaphroi shield without a porpax and antilabe, so the existence of such a shield must remain pure speculation

And yet how many depictions of phalangite shields do we have which show the telamon? One, by my count, and in that depiction we only see the front of the shield.

as must a "large rimmed shield" for which there is almost no evidence either, other than the belt depiction which is artistically suspect anyway....

There is also the evidence that Philopoemen equipped his men with Argive shields, a statement which, when taken with the comment that Cleomenes instructed his men to not use the porpax but to use the ochane, shows that they could easily have been used with the sarissa. But even so, why is the belt depiction "artistically suspect"? The only thing which seems to be suspect about it is the awkward depiction of the stance of the phalangite, which has always been a difficulty for Greek artists. It's clear enough that the artist was careful to depict the details of the arms and armour we see (like the decoration of the shield and the konos helmets, for instance). In response, I would ask you how much direct, unequivocal evidence we have for the use of smaller, rimless shields among the phalanx? Not much, either. That's the nature of studying this topic, unfortunately.