The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

MeinPanzer wrote:Secondly, the Achaeans did adopt the Argive aspis, and not the Macedonian shield (Pausanias, 8.50.1). However, this does not indicate that they re-armed their hoplites with such shields. It simply means that the phalangites used Argive aspides. Contra Paul, it would not have been physically impossible to carry the Argive shield while bearing the sarissa. We know that when Cleomenes III equipped his men as phalangites, he issued shields to them and taught them "to wield the sarissa with both hands and to bear the shield with strap (ochane), not with porpax" (Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes, 9.2). Once it is accepted that the phalangite did not have to employ a porpax to carry his shield, the offset rim and size of the hoplite shield are no longer impediments to wielding the sarissa.

Indeed. Those, though, sticking to the old view, would still argue the point. In his impecunious state, one hardly imagines Kleomenes commissioning the construction of purpose-designed shields as well as sarisae. Baldrics added to existing shields though... now there's a notion - particularly for those helots who'd bought their right to die at Sellasia.

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...


Plutarch (Amel.Paull. 19.2) describing the Macedonians at Pydna. Clealry they are pulling their shields from "their shoulders" and around in front of them. Thus they are not on the arm but slung from the neck by a strap.

I am surprised to see it being suggested that shields simply ‘hung’ from their neckstrap/telamones. This suggestion was largely discredited more than 35 years ago by Charles S. Grant among others, and Connolly and other re-enactors since. An old ‘canard’ that is as lame now as it was then ! To begin with, any shield unsupported by hand/arm will be driven in by the first serious blow it receives. Secondly, even a smallish 60- 70 cm shield is a severe encumbrance dangling thus – and anyone who has tried it can tell you that it is impractical to fight in this way. Any shield must be moved to parry – see any practical arms manual from any era. A soldier in combat unable to move his shield is a dead soldier – effectively shieldless.
Furthermore, as the Aemilius Paullus frieze illustration posted by Paul B. shows,(beating me to it!) in fact a porpax was used with the ‘Macedonian’ shield.
That this shield was not an ‘Argive’ aspis is shown by three things:
1. It is clearly rimless
2. Whatever time the infantry use of the ‘Argive’aspis ended, it was almost certainly long before 168 BC
3. Nowhere in the accounts of Pydna are there any references to Macedonian infantry who could be armed with an ‘argive’ aspis.

As for the Plutarch passage referring to the same occasion, the manuals make it clear that on the approach march, the sarissa was shouldered, as one would expect, and needed two hands to steady it .The shield, with porpax, thus hung beside the left arm/shoulder, perpendicular to the line of march. On the command being given, the sarissa was lowered and held horizontally at the right side. This action also brought the shield around from beside the shoulder to its proper ‘ready’ position.( see attached photo of Mathew Connolly demonstrating same, which I have posted before. See also P. Connolly JRMES 11 2000 for photos of group phalanx drill.)
The reference to Cleomenes troops is a literary flourish to emphasise the different method of shield use, and should be read as “bear the shield with strap, (partly) not with porpax (alone).
As Connolly points out ( e.g. P.75 Greece and Rome at War) a neck’strap was needed because the ‘Macedonian’ shield lacked the rim to allow it to be rested on the shoulder when not in use, and to help support the sarissa.

I believe the adoption of the thureos, which happened very likely first in Aetolia (but at what time before the 250s is unknown), was due to ease of construction and the overall flexibility of the arm. However, I don't think that the defeat of the Galatians by the Aetolians inspired them to adopt it - if anything, the weakness of the Galatians to missile fire was an indictment of the shield, which failed to provide ample protection (10.22.6).
I have already alluded to the fact that ‘enemy’ weapons can be adopted for a number of reasons, and I don’t think you would deny that ‘thureophoroi’ using Gallic style shields appeared in the aftermath of the invasion. The adoption, for whatever reason, was a direct consequence of the defeat of the Gauls by the Aetolians.


Paullus wrote:

The Boeotians seem to have been the first, shortly after 279 BC.(judging by several inscriptions, and tomb reliefs). However, by 245 BC, no more Gallic invasions having materialised, they switched to 'Macedonian' armament, having become an ally of Macedon.

If the Boeotians made the switch "shortly after 279 BC," then please produce an inscription or tomb relief which attests to the use of the thureos dating to before 250 BC.

The tomb of Eubolos, dated 275-250 BC ( see e.g. the Cambridge History of Warfare) – but I’m sure you expected me to say that! For further details see Feyel (Polybe et l'histoire de la Beotie) which discusses Boiotian inscriptions that describe young citizens being recruited into the thureophoroi - dating from about the 270s to 240s

Ruben/Meipanzer wrote:

There are two different types of cavalry shield: thureos-like and aspides. What evidence do you have that the large round cavalry shields employed in the Hellenistic period were single grip? I don't think I know of any evidence other than for such shields having porpakes and antilabai.

I think you misunderstand, of have maybe misread my post – I refer to both the the single-rib/single hand grip Italo-Gallic type, and the Greek type with porpax and antilabe. I was not suggesting ‘aspis’ types were single grip.

These aren't trophies, these are either votive offerings or, more likely, dedications made to the state with the explicit purpose of arming citizens. Usually these citizens were ephebes, but they could also be poor individuals or even mercenaries. These were kept all together in temple treasuries.

The arms supplied to war orphans and ephebes had to be stored somewhere, and just as the "emergency fund" of the state was to be found in the Acropolis (Thucydides 2.13.4), so too were arms. We, for instance, hear of 318 cases of arrows stored in the Hecatompedon and Opisthodomos IGII2, 1424a, l. 121-2) which certainly seem to be stored arms and are not listed as dedications.

You are quite right – for some reason I had it in mind that you meant dedicated captured trophies, overlooking the fact that Temples could be and were used as arsenals – indeed storehouses generally for ordinary goods, as well as those dedicated/belonging to the Gods.

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.

I don’t believe there is any convincing evidence for such a premise – cutting down the rim would compromise the structure and rigidity of the shield, and render it useless, I suspect that experimentally, small rims might have been added to ‘Macedonian’ shields is possible – the rim deflects a weapon sliding over the domed surface, so that it doesn’t come straight over the edge of the shield, a disadvantage of the rimless shield compared to the ‘Argive’ type.

Paralus wrote:
Agreed. The quote was simply a reaction to those (as Markle originally) dismissing shields such as those on the wall of the tomb of L&K as phalangite shields - insisting they are hoplite - as they do not match an uneccessarilly restrictive read of that passage of Ascepiodotus. It might appear, given the very close similarity, that these are little different to those on the Paullus monument.

It should be pointed out that it is more likely the shields in the Lyson and Kallikles tomb are quite possibly cavalry shields. The high-waisted armour depicted certainly is a cavalry cuirass c.f. Alexander mosaic, the Roman bronze of Alexander in the BM, and the Pelinna relief from Thessaly ( the latter two illustrated on pp5 and 8 of Sekunda’s “The Army of Alexander the Great”). I referred to the potential for confusion following the introduction of cavalry shields earlier e.g. the larger ‘Macedonian’ shields are now believed to be cavalry shields.( sorry, can’t find the ref at the moment)