The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[MeinPanzer]

In any case, as Anderson quotes Pritchett in commenting on the clash with the manuals' prescription:

we seem to have the choice of accepting the figure of 0.80 m. from the few preserved artifacts... or of following Asklepiodotos who gives
the diameter as eight palms (0.6166 m.)." He adds that "it seems safer to follow the archaeological evidence."

As Liampi has keenly noted, though, there is no conflict between Asclepiodotus and the archaeological record. Asclepiodotus was writing a prescriptive manual, and he states that the Macedonian shield is the best "of the shields of the phalanx," in the same way that Xenophon states that the Boeotian is the best helmet for cavalrymen to employ in "On Horsemanship" - it clearly was not the only kind which had been used before, but the author considered it the best. The Greek of this statement shows that there were many kinds which could, or had, been employed by phalangites in the past. So the shield facing found at Pergamon, a little over 60 cm in diameter, shallow, and rimless, fits perfectly with the Macedonian shield of Asclepiodotus' description, while the other shields found represent some of the other types in use.

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.

I think we are in agreement here - I disagree with the line that the Macedonian shield and the Argive aspis can be cleanly separated into "relatively small, shallow, rimless" and "relatively large and domed, with a rim." The modern category of "Macedonian shield" (which does not directly correspond with the ancient one, as shown by Asclepiodotus' description) includes shields that vary drastically in shape and size, including some with rims which much more closely resembe Argive aspides than, for instance, the Pergamon shield.

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.

I think it is clear that rim sizes could vary, and so only shields with smaller rims could have been used or, as you suggest, rims were cut down. But even so, I would suggest that a loose loop passing around the left wrist rather than an antilabe was in use. Such a loop was not necessary to support the shield, though, as that was the purpose of the telamon, and I disagree that it could not be used to effectively wield the shield. With such a large shield, as long as the phalangite could keep it in front of the exposed portion of his body, it was serving its purpose. And yes, keep in mind that I am only suggesting that this was a stop-gap measure - it may have been somewhat impractical, but if the rear ranks of a phalanx rarely engaged in close combat and yet needed to carry shields, this would have been a pragmatic compromise.

But why must you remove them at all? Since you have to move the antilabe to the shield's edge in order to hold the sarissa, why not just leave it there? Especially if Spartans still had a modular central portion of the porpax as their forefathers did to keep it from being used without consent.

The antilabe would not have to have been moved to the shield's edge, only lengthened into a loop through which the forearm could pass. The porpax, though, would have jutted out and prevented the bearer from tucking into the curvature of the shield, and so it would then need to be removed.