The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

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.

All that these reenactors have shown with their limited tests is that some types of shield - Asclepiodotus' Macedonian shield - could be effectively employed with porpax. Well, that has been amply demonstarted....and that a 'hanging' shield is worse than useless..
Once again, the purpose would not have been to deflect serious blows, nor to parry - they were probably just intended to be used as defense against missile weapons for those not in the front ranks. We hear about how phalangites were unsuited to fighting in close combat, and so it was perhaps thought to be worth it to arm a number of men with shields which conferred some defensive benefit, if not when it comes to close combat, in order to fill out the ranks.
This is very much surmise - and has been pointed out , better performed by a simple strapped on 'cardiophylax' as used from the Middle East to far Spain at different times.... as to close combat, that was the 'raison d'etre' for the phalanx, but what you say "unsuited etc" was said by Polybius, discussing what happened once 'hand-to-hand' combat occurred with swords/secondary weapons

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

The stele of Eubolos is dated to between 275 and 250 because it features thureoi and it is known that the first years the thureos could have been in use was the mid-270s, while it was no longer in use after 245 - so this does not provide any evidence for the date when the thureos came into use per se.
Uh-Huh !...just as I expected...knew this point was coming !
Instead, we must rely on the two military catalogues which mention thureaphoroi, IG VII, 2716 and SEG 3, 351. On the latter the preamble listing the archons in office has been lost, and so it cannot be dated with precision beyond "pre-245;" the former, however, preserves the name of the federal archon Dorkylos, which means that it can be dated between 250 and 245. Therefore, the terminus ante quem for the adoption of the thureos in Boeotia is 250: almost exactly the same as for the Achaean and Aetolian leagues.
I don't think this is convincing. Firstly, two inscriptions can hardly give us 'termini'. Second, I don't believe it would be logical for the Greeks to wait until 30 years after the Gallic invasions, before adopting the 'thureos'. The situation was that mighty Macedonia's hitherto invincible army had been all but wiped out in two overwhelming defeats at the hands of the Gauls, who had then proceeded to loot/destroy Macedonia, including its tombs. The Gauls then came south, but retired in the end, harried by Aetolian 'peltasts/psiloi'. The perhaps obvious 'wonder weapon' that defeated Macedon may well have been viewed as the 'thureos', and at all events, having captured thousands, the Aetolian adoption of it would have been the first, very soon after, rather than 30 years later! Similarly, we know the Boeotians switched to the 'Macedonian manner' around 245 BC, as you have referred to, and it does not seem likely they would have done this within 5 years of changing to 'Thureophoroi' ( if one assumes 250 BC) Furthermore, Aetolian coins appear showing the Hero Aetolus sitting on piles of captured 'thureoi' and Macedonian shields and dated 279-260 BC - mind you this depiction is still used in 220-218 BC. These are probably intended to be trophies captured from the Gauls ( who would likely have used captured Macedonian equipment) - showing that Aetolia possessed quantities of 'Thureoi' from 279 BC.

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.

If I understood you correctly, and you were referring to the round cavalry shield furnished with a spina like the thureos, then I was challenging the fact that they are single grip, as you assert, and not equipped with a porpax. What evidence do you use to support this?
The handle on all known 'spina/umbo shields' is single-grip, seemingly turned 90 degrees on cavalry shields ( e.g. Aemilius Paullus frieze and Roman coinage) Shouldn't the emphasis here be on you to support the idea that these had porpaxes?

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.

So, in your view, how would the phalangite on the Pergamon battle plate with the domed shield with small rim be able to wield the sarissa with a porpax?
Assuming this depiction to be correct ( and its accuracy id dubious in several respects - see the shield overthe supposed sarissa for instance - notice that both shields are held away from the body and therefore must be on a porpax, not held by strap alone.

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)

Certainly you do not think that the shield decorated "in the Macedonian manner" is a cavalry shield? In our fairly plentiful evidence from all over the Hellenistic world, we never see such shields in use among cavalry, only ever infantry. The single exception is a cavalrymen on a belt plaque from Basse Selce in Albania, but he is clearly an Illyrian cavalryman, as he wears an Illyrian helmet.

The panoplies don't necessarily relate to the single arms shown in the paintings, but simply seem to be generic trophies, since if they did each individual would possess two helmets.
It is possible that both cavalry and infantry equipment is depicted of course - consider both found in the 'Philip' and other tombs, and of course wealthy aristocrats could and probably did possess more than one helmet c.f. for example Italian tombs showing multiple 'panoplia'