The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[PMBardunias]

It needs to be remembered that rather than two distinct types of shields, Macedonian pelte and Argive aspis, there is in fact a spectrum, both of size and shape, ranging from 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, up to 100 cm in diameter, dished, and with an offset rim. Shields between 60 and 80 cm are typically called Macedonian, those between 80 and 100 cm in diameter Argive, and yet we find numerous hybrids, like larger Macedonian shields with small rims, or smaller hoplite shields with small rims. I'd like to see thorough tests conducted with shields of all types so far known, so that it could be established, for instance, when a shield became too large/dished/large-rimmed to be able to employ with a sarissa.

I wrote about the artificial differences we ascribe to Greek shields in an old thread: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=25996&p=232247&hilit=continuity+of+greek+shields#p232040">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=25996&p=232247&hilit=continuity+of+greek+shields#p232040<!-- l

When I wrote this, I had yet to read Blyth’s paper on the Vatican aspis, so I was simply relating my own opinion when I noted that a deep-bowled 70 cm diameter rimless pelta is functionally the same as a shallower 80+ cm diameter rimmed aspis. Blyth notes that with a shield built up of glued lathes, the need for a robust rim to halt edge-splitting is reduced compared to a solid wood aspis. In this the depth plays a major role as well, because a shallow aspis does not function to bear weight as a dome efficiently, and so requires the added stiffening of a rim perpendicular to the direction of force applied to the shield. In the almost hemispherical peltae, the dome shape lends support to the whole structure.

So, in short, I agree with Ruben that there is a continuum of shields, but would caution that the rim, which seems like an important feature in telling shields apart at first glance, is not a reliable character because it has a function that might simply be tied to construction method and shield profile.

Where I would caution Ruben is that my analysis tells me that the sarissa cannot be used with a rimmed shield efficiently. The reason for this is that regardless of diameter, the grip seems to be within the bowl of the shield. With a rim of some 4+ inches, the grip would have to be so loose to allow the hand to hold the sarissa shaft in a position that gets aroudn the rim that it could neither be used to support the hand nor effectively wield the shield. Draw it and you will see that the aspis would have to be almost parallel to the forearm for this to work. Of course we don’t know how rimmed the Spartan aspides were, and it is surely possible for them to have chopped down a section of the rim as a stop-gap measure.