Polybius\' Portrait

[D B Campbell]

"The historian Polybius shown on a relief at Cleitor (near Calavryta in Arcadia) dedicated in the third century AD by Titus Flavius Polybius who claimed to be his descendant. The relief is now almost destroyed, but this photo is of a cast made before the damage was done."

I may be missing something -- probably am :roll: -- but why is our slab third century? Why isn't it (a copy of) one of the slabs that Pausanias saw? In which case, it could very well be a classicising portrait of Polybius, depicted with "classic" Greek equipment to symbolise his championing of the motherland.

I note that second and third century inscriptions mentioning Titi Flavii Polybioi are known (apparently Inschriften von Olympia 449, 450, 486, 487; non vidi). But they are quite separate from our stele.

[Paralus]

Why isn't it (a copy of) one of the slabs that Pausanias saw? In which case, it could very well be a classicising portrait of Polybius, depicted with "classic" Greek equipment to symbolise his championing of the motherland.

Well indeed:

That, though, ignores that the artist might have wished to render him so. This is the Greek who saw the end of "Greek independence" and who sought to explain it. The Greek who saw the end of the Achaean League and wrote of Rome's ultimate "settlement" of Greek and Macedonian affairs. He went out of his way to exculpate himself and his father Lycortas in regards to this (the league sat on its sarisae in 170-168) but that waffles on.

Perhaps the artist wished the "last Greek" rendered in classic heroic fashion: aspis and helmet? He might have gone further and had him wear it cocked back in Periclean fashion.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Perhaps the artist wished the "last Greek" rendered in classic heroic fashion

It seems this honour was accorded to another;

Plutarch Philopoemen 1.3 " And a certain Roman, in praising him, called him the last of the Greeks, implying that Greece produced no great man after him, nor one worthy of her."
Polybius, of course, had the honour of carrying Philopoemen's ashes in their urn in the funeral procession with full honours and later persuaded the Roman Mummius and his commission of ten, following the destruction of Corinth, not to remove all his staues and honours. One member of the commission had accused Philopoemen of being "a malevolent enemy of Rome" for his earlier opposition to Flamininus and Manius......

[MeinPanzer]

An interesting and ingenious interpretation, Ruben, which made me examine again in details the two photos. I'm afraid though that I find your explanation unlikely for the following reasons:
1. You seem to be saying that classic 'Hoplite' equipment ( argive aspis and dory) was 'contemporary' in the 2 C BC? I don't know of anyone else who would support the use of 'argive shields', and the single-handed dory in the 2 C BC ! ( the two-handed sarissa cannot be used with the classic 'argolic aspis' because of it's size and the rim - I know there is some evidence that macedonian shields could be rimmed, but this one is too large in any event )

Pausanias is quite clear: he reformed men fighting with thureos and doration into men fighting with Argolic (Argive) shields and dorates megaloi (sarissai). I would have to totally disagree with you on the statement that "the two-handed sarissa cannot be used with the classic 'Argolic aspis' because of its size and the rim." The Pergamon battle plate clearly shows large shields, one of which is rimmed, being used by phalangites. Now, we know that hoplite shields from the Archaic through Classical periods (coming from, for instance, the examples found at Olympia) measured between a metre and 0.8 m in size. There are examples of Macedonian shields ranging from around 0.60 to 0.75 m, while examples from iconographic sources, like the monument of Aemilius Paullus and the Pergamon battle plate seem to show very large, deeply dished shields in use by Macedonians, and on the former definitely by phalangites. "Argolic shield" probably just referred to the general form of the shield (round, offset rim), so the Argolic shields of Pausanias certainly could have been in the upper range of the phalangite shield sizes. There is no reason to think that the Achaean citizen troops could not have used Argive shields along with sarissai to fight as phalangites.

2.Turning to the helmet, even looking at the photos under magnification, I do not see a 'volute'. Are you referring to the damaged 'face' ? (where in the photo in Grant, what appears to me to be the almond shaped eye-holes are visible.) If you are referring to the line under the crown, this is clearly the 'classic' bowl shape. Next, looking at the bowl/crown it is definitely of 'classic' form, being nothing like the Italian 'pseudo-Corinthian/Apulo Corinthian' shape ( though I don't suppose you meant that type), and even less like the Hellenistic type, where 'eyes' are not depicted, and the join between 'face' and bowl marked by a volute. Finally, the crest is of the 'classic' 6-5 C BC type, and not like 2 C BC types.

This photo, from SEHHW, clearly shows a volute:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/polybius.JPG

This picture also shows that the area where the face would have been is too damaged to show anything. Furthermore, there is a clear example from the Pergamene weapons reliefs - firmly dated to the 180s BC and on which there is absolutely no evidence of depicting archaized or mythical weaponry - of a Pseudo-Corinthian which still exhibits the "classic bowl shape" of the original Corinthian. The crest is also found on numerous Hellenistic representations of pseudo-Corinthian helmets, as Dintsis shows in Taf. 38-39 of his comprehensive work on Hellenistic helmets.

3. I think you are being a little selective when referring to Plutarch (writing in Roman times in the 1st C AD) and Pausanias ( late 2nd C AD). It should be remembered that 'aspis' does not always specifically mean the rimmed Hoplite shield, but can be a generic word for 'shield' generally. In the passage you refer to, Plutarch is at pains to explain that Philopoemen re-armed the Acheans as a Macedonian phalanx, replacing 'thureos' (oblong shield) and 'doratos' (spear)with 'aspis' (round shield) and 'sarissa' ( two-handed pike), and as previously noted, 'aspis' cannot here have the specific meaning of rimmed large Hoplite round shield, because this is incompatible with the two-handed 'sarissa'.
Pausanias does not use the macedonian word 'sarissa', but instead speaks of 'argolic shield' and 'great/long spears' ( doratoi megalois), and is clearly also referring to Macedonian equipment.

There is no reason to doubt either Pausanias or Plutarch in their descriptions of the reforms. They almost certainly drew from Polybius' account of the reforms, which is lost to us, though we do have many other parts of his account of the reform and Philopoemen's career, and they fully agree with one another, and his account would have been as trustworthy as any we could hope to get. How can you take Pausanias' reference to the Argolic shield as indicating anything other than the use of the hoplite shield? It is a common misconception, drawing myopically on Asclepiodotus, that the phalangite's shield was 60-70 cm and shallow. Asclepiodotus, writing a theoretical and prescriptive work, states that this is the best of the shields used by phalangites - meaning that there were others, and this is made clear by the iconographic sources which show much larger and deeper shields in use. (When this is taken into consideration, it's not even that radical that phalangites would use the "hoplite" shield, as smaller examples would be closer to Asclepiodotus' ideal Macedonian shield than the large, dished shields of the iconographic sources.) When these kinds of shields were carried with straps rather than porpakes, they could have been much larger and still allow the phalangite to wield his sarissa two-handed. Incidentally, Plutarch tells us that Cleomenes III reformed the hoplites of the Spartan army by changing the porpakes of their aspides for ochanai, or straps (Life of Cleomenes, 11.2), but doesn't state that they changed shields, like he does in his description of Philopoemen's reforms; he therefore probably simply swapped porpakes for ochanai on their Argive aspides for an easy fix and had his men begin using the sarissa and training in the maneuvers of the Macedonian phalanx.

4. Pausanias is writing at the end of the 2nd C AD (174-175 AD), not that long before the relief of Polybius was made, so that it is possible that if he really believed the large argive rimmed shield was carried with sarissa, then a sculptor some years later might also. This is a point in favour of your idea, but still means the relief shows inaccurate/anachronistic equipment. In fact, it suggests that the 3rd C AD sculptor was not copying some earlier 2nd C BC contemporary monument ( which would not have such an error), so making it more likely that no accurate likeness was being shown.

As stated above, Pausanias drew from Polybius, who was no doubt very specific on this topic (hence the specific terminology he and Plutarch both use in describing the arms in use both before and after the reform).

Finally, although I know you have pointed to evidence which suggests 'rimmed' macedonian type shields ( though so far none found have rims), the size of the shield in the sculpture ( which scales out at around 34-36 inches/0.9 m therefore a Hoplite aspis) and the helmet depicted suggest that on balance of probability, anachronistic 'classic Hoplite' equipment is shown.........but others may decide for themselves !! D

How do you figure the shield in the depiction is around 0.9 m in diameter? If you take the man's height to be c. 1.72 m (the average height of Hellenistic males, after G. Kron, "Anthropometry, Physical Anthropology, and the Reconstruction of Ancient Health, Nutrition, and Living Standards (Historia 54, 2005)), and the ration of the man's height to the shield diameter is about 2.15, then the shield would be about 0.8 m.

[Praefectusclassis]

Click to enlarge.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I can't quote to many sources, but to me the first thing I see is a corinthian..... :|

[Paralus]

I would have to totally disagree with you on the statement that "the two-handed sarissa cannot be used with the classic 'Argolic aspis' because of its size and the rim." [...] Now, we know that hoplite shields from the Archaic through Classical periods (coming from, for instance, the examples found at Olympia) measured between a metre and 0.8 m in size. There are examples of Macedonian shields ranging from around 0.60 to 0.75 m, while examples from iconographic sources, like the monument of Aemilius Paullus and the Pergamon battle plate seem to show very large, deeply dished shields in use by Macedonians, and on the former definitely by phalangites.

I agree. In fact, I suggested to Johnny Schumate that the shields he depicted for the Argyraspids in "Gabiene" (III-2) be larger and more "dished". It remains my view that these troops utilised a larger, more "hoplite" shield than the regular levy - as well as the sarisa.

Some ten years back that "high prophet" of the Macedonian aspis versus 60cm phalangite shield, Minor M Markle, admitted that the shields depicted in the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles - formerly "clearly hoplite aspides" with offset rims - were something somewhat different and used by sarisae wielders.

It is a common misconception, drawing myopically on Asclepiodotus, that the phalangite's shield was 60-70 cm and shallow. Asclepiodotus, writing a theoretical and prescriptive work, states that this is the best of the shields used by phalangites - meaning that there were others, and this is made clear by the iconographic sources which show much larger and deeper shields in use.

Yes: nothing like a tight and restrictive interpretation of the material. No such restrrictive view is applied to the sarisa though. Universally it is taken as being between 14 and 18 feet long because the only reference indicates so. Clearly, as you say, Ascepiodotus is aware that other shields were in use or had been. As well your point about Kleomenes is cogent. That he will have found the money - even with the Bank of Ptolemy's support - to ditch all his aspides and replace them with phalangite "pelte" is unlikely. Much more likely that he added a strap to the apsis, gave them a barge pole with a blade and sent them on their way.

Another piece of religious dogma is that the phalangite shield was supported only by a telamon. Were that the case it was then unable to be held when required. Evidently the assault on Tyre by Koinos' aesthetairoi was not carried out from a ship with a sarisa. It follows that a dory or longche was used and the shield was held by other means. Johnny's rendition of the two leather straps seems logical.