The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[MeinPanzer]

Well, I think enough have been done over the last 30 years or so to demonstrate the most likely method....and that 'hanging shields' are suicidal. I've no doubt that 30 seconds of mock combat with you so armed would convince you too ! D

A handful of tests, mostly performed by Connoly, have shown that the use of the Macedonian pelte of Asclepiodotus with a porpax is one likely method, but as Asclepiodotus makes clear, phalangites employed other kinds of shields. And it is only you who has announced that hanging shields are suicidal; I would like to see some rigorous testing before concluding anything.

There are several assumptions here - why would there not be as many body armours as shields in preserved trophies or stored panoplies?

Because shields are always many times more plentiful than body armour in inventory lists, for the quite obvious reason that shields were an essential part of the heavy infantryman's panoply, and thus more were dedicated by individuals or provided by benefactors to the state; on top of this, most body armour was expensive.

Furthermore, a 'hanging shield' is a positive nuisance, in the way, and an impediment to using one's own arms. Not to mention that 'cutting down' an aspis to allow it to be used with a sarissa would ruin its structural integrity - nor could an intact 'Argive aspis' be used - it is just too big to be used with a two-handed 'sarissa' physically ( you can't get around it).

I have already explained why it would be possible for a phalangite to use a full-size Argive aspis with sarissa.

The 'poor defence' I think meant that the 'thureos' was the Celt's sole protection - he had no helmet or body armour, hence was vulnerable to missiles, especially the limbs and head outside the shield. The 'thureos' was hardly 'poor protection' compared to the smaller, thinner, flimsier 'pelta'.

You originally suggested that the adoption of the thureos was on account of the Aetolians' success in defeating the Galatians with missiles, and yet Pausanias clearly states that the thureos was insufficient for this purpose. This is my main disagreement with you: I agree that the shield was adopted probably within a decade or so of the Galatian invasion, but I think for other reasons, not directly because of the interaction between Aetolians and Galatians that we hear about.

I have already given reasons I think the adoption was sooner rather than later. As to adopting 'superior' weapon systems ( which may be perceived rather than factual), it may be because the astounded Greeks did not believe that the the Macedonian phalanx was superior to the Doric phalanx after Chaeronea, until after the conquests of Alexander and his 'invincible' army. Shortly after that, the invincible Macedonians were shattered twice by Gallic arms, so unsurprisingly it was these that were imitated.

Following this reasoning, what reason would the Greeks have had for equipping their hoplites with the thureos? The Galatian invasion offered them even less reason than Chaeronea did to change shields, because whenever hoplites were engaged in combat, barring severe imbalances in numbers, they did quite well.

Then it became apparent that thureophoroi could not prevail against 'arms in the Macedonian manner' and we see the gradual adoption of these, until 'Roman arms' prevail - when ultimately the Seleucids and Ptolemies go over to these, though too late.

Once again, this logic doesn't always prevail in history. The Boeotians changed from hoplite-thureophoros infantry to the Macedonian phalanx after being defeated by the Aetolians - among whom there is no evidence for the use of the Macedonian phalanx.

As to absorbing weaponry, the Greeks had the technology to copy the thureos, but it was a quite different matter to learn the superior, and undoubtedly secret, skills of Celtic iron technology - certainly on a mass scale. It would take even the Romans several hundred years of contact with the Celts to absorb their iron technology that produced long quality iron swords ( despite criticism of swords that bent!), mail and beautiful iron helmets - at least on a mass scale.

This is a good point which I had not thought of.

Those 15,000 panoplies referred to by by Polybius, along with other 'treasures' were gathered up from all over Aetolia following a surprise invasion by Philip V - there was so much that much of it, much had to be stored in houses surrounding the temple citadel, to be ultimately captured by the Macedonians, who kept the richest/choicest and burnt the rest.

This isn't the case. Philip's invasion was too sudden for the Aetolians to do anything but abandon their homes. Polybius makes clear that the Aetolians thought the region around Thermon all but impenetrable, and thus foolishly maintained richly furnished houses there undefended with stocks of supplies to celebrate the Thermika: "For as the annual fair and most famous games, as well as the elections, were held there, everybody kept their most costly possessions in store at Thermus, to enable them to entertain their friends, and to celebrate the festivals with proper magnificence" (5.8.5). No mention is made of the Aetolians moving their property into Thermon for defensive purposes. Furthermore, he uses the verb anakeimai to refer to the hopla stored in the stoas of the sanctuary, which is a verb only used to refer to dedications or offerings, and so these were simply the normal panoplies kept there.

I don't think this was even mostly Gallic since it represented ALL trophies/'stored arsenal arms in Aetolia's Temples since time immemorial. Much of it was useless, as shown by it being burnt. Nor does it show that the Gallic equipment/thureoi among the 'panoplies' was not in use, since there was no time to raise Aetolia's troops, only time to gather up the 'treasures/arsenals' and take them to a "safe" place, apparently.

We hear numerous times of the dedications of Celtic arms among the Aetolians in the literary sources, we have several archaeological indications of Celtic arms being dedicated at Thermon, and the victory over the Galatians not only would have left a large number of arms to be collected by the Aetolians, but it was also considered their most important victory, so it seems very likely that many of those arms were Galatian. Nor were these arms useless because they were burnt - quite the opposite, Polybius makes clear that the arms were so plentiful, and of such good quality, that the Macedonians returned with heaps of spoils and had to pick the absolute best and burn the rest - a clear riposte to the destruction wrought by the Aetolians at Dion and Dodona in previous years. Finally, far from there not being time to raise Aetolian troops, at the time Aetolia was drained of troops because the league's strategos was off in Thessaly campaigning, which is why Philip attacked in the first place, and why the Aetolian response was so weak. These 15,000 panoplies therefore could not have regularly been in use.

Again, as with the 'Eubolos tombstone', my sixth sense told me you would raise this ! :wink:
The problem I have with these two examples is again the size of the sample ( two) and the fact that they are miniature /model votive items. In the case of the Telamon example, apparently all we have is the drawing. This shows what must be a cast shield with spina and umbo. To this, at some time, has been added a sheet metal item, which may be a hanging loop, or intended to be an oversize, out of scale porpax If the latter, it would be very difficult/uncomfortable to use such a porpax, placed right over the hollow of the 'umbo'; and against this interpretation, why would one add such an item to a cast one-piece votive item unless it was for the practical purpose of 'hanging loop'? The evidence here is at best equivocal, though possible....

The size of the sample is small, but then again, the overall number of representations we possess of this shield is tiny, and obviously we have even fewer representations of the inside of the shield, so, as with so much else in ancient history, we make do with what we have! Such votive shields, whether terracotta or metal often had the handle orientation represented, to better represent the shield in realistic detail, and so this is not unusual at all, nor is there reason to think that the porpax was added later. And there isn't any reason to think that these were hung up by such straps, either: simple holes were added to the edges of such votive shields to provide for being hung up when necessary, which was much easier than adding on a small strap in the middle of the shield with which to hang it.

I don't believe 'sarissaphoroi' shields had significant rims, and I think Paul B. is correct that in fact both shields here are the same - depicted rimless. Certainly the shields of the 'Aghios Athanasios' fresco and the 'Aemilius Paullus' frieze show rimless shields of maximum size to be used with 'sarissa', as one might expect...

Firstly, the drawing is clear, and one certainly is rimmed - I will provide very high resolution scans of the original reproduction of the drawing to show this. Secondly, the Agios Athanasios soldiers are almost certainly equipped as cavalrymen and/or hoplites, and not as phalangites. Thirdly, you seem to be dodging the question, Paul, of how a phalangite could use a shield like that seen on the Pydna monument to carry a sarissa two-handed. Please, outline the mechanics of how that individual could carry his shield with a porpax and also carry the sarissa with both hands. Also, if the Pydna shield is that of a phalangite, where is the telamon?