The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

Phew! ......you go away for one weekend and when you come back, the thread has moved on in leaps and bounds. Like Paul B. I am finding it hard to keep up with the many topics, issues and matters raised......
I would certainly like to get back to the subject of Philip's reforms before diving into later issues.... Anybody want to kick it off ?

Meanwhile to answer some points raised.....

Ruben/Mein Panzer wrote:

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.

I believe you have misunderstood Asclepiodotus, who, like the other versions, refers to the Hoplites/corps of heavy Infantry, not necessarily sarissaphoroi, which “uses very heavy equipment – for the men are protected by shields of the largest size, cuirasses and greaves” – which distinguishes the ‘heavy infantry’ from lighter types. He then goes on to say: “The best type of shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter..” – note the use of the singular; the best type of shield for the phalanx of heavy infantry/hoplites is the Macedonian one ( as opposed, say, to the Argive aspis, or the Thureos), and of course the best type of spear is also the Macedonian that goes with it.
There is only one shield type called Macedonian. C.f. Aelian:” The phalanx will be armed with shield and spear. Now the best kind of shield is bronze, in the Macedonian style, not too concave, eight palms (8 x 3” = 2 ft.) in width….” Again singular and referring to the Macedonian shield, as opposed to other types.

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.

Yes, you are right – it was a thoughtless question, written when I was tired – especially since I am an advocate of the view that the ‘de minimis’ Hoplite panoply did not include body-armour!

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

But your explanation cannot be correct! It is not just Connolly, but many, including me, who have explored this question by recreation. I urge you to do the same. Cut out a 90 cm disk from a cardboard box. Add some string and hang it round your neck. Now grab a rake or broom-handle and hold it two-handed sarissa fashion. If you have the disk hanging in front of you can’t reach around the two sides to hold the ‘pike’. So place your left arm behind the hanging shield – now you can grasp the pike, but your arm is in just the right place for a porpax. Now make a two-handed thrust. The disk/”shield” slides around as you move until it is hanging beside you, side/edge on, and providing no protection at all. As well, the telamon supporting the heavy aspis is in the way of you thrusting. Now you should understand why you need a porpax……and why you can’t use an Argive aspis, because once you add the essential porpax, the shield is too big to reach the ‘pike’ with the left hand, because of the rim ( essential for structural integrity of the aspis).

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.

Well, not having been there at the time, I’m not going to be too insistent on reasons, but it does seem logical to me that the Aetolians, mostly peltasts, must have observed in their battles that the Gallic ‘thureoi’ provided better protection than their own ‘peltai’, and that its long shape was suited better to the ‘peltast’ style of individual fighting than either 'aspis' or 'pelta', and having done so and captured many of them it would make sense to adopt it….I have already stated that I believe that the meaning was that the Gallic shields alone provided inadequate protection.

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.

I think the answer again is likely to be found in the evolution in Greek warfare away from the heavy Hoplite, toward the more useful Peltast types, ( most mercenaries/mistophoroi seem to have been peltast types), and the realisation that the 'thureos' was a better protection for such troops. The change may also have to do with social change and the demise of the small land-holder/Hoplite class with its expensive equipment, the growth of larger armies, hence need to recruit from lower social classes. It is likely that as with most changes, many factors were at work…… but one of them was almost certainly the impression that the Gallic troops made on the Greeks. Certainly they would have been aware of the ‘long shield’ previously, in use in Northern Illyria, Thrace and Italy prior to this time – but it was the Gallic use of this ‘long shield’ that made the most impression, during the invasions.

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.

True, and as I say above, one should be wary of simplistic explanations when likely many factors were at work. In the case of the Boeotians, they became close allies of Macedon at the time, and likely adopted Macedonian for two main reasons;
Firstly their own 'Thureophoroi' had not proved terribly successful, as you say, against the Aetolians, and secondly adopting Macedonian arms allowed them to join and conform with the Phalanx, and show 'solidarity', with their ally Macedon...

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.

You are quite correct – I had misunderstood the passage, and on re-reading it, these were indeed the panoplies kept there, as Polybius implies ‘since time immemorial’ and doubtless including many recent examples, since Polybius tells us the Macedonians utilised many ‘exchanged for their own’ – which obviously weren’t Gallic. On reflection, I believe you are also correct in saying these panoplies were not in regular use.

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 agree with you that the device added to the back of the shield would make an unlikely ‘hanger’, but equally it is obvious that this ‘porpax’ of sheet metal has been added to the original cast object at some time, possibly in antiquity. I remain suspicious of it.

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?

Why would only one of a number of shields shown be rimmed? Whatever the drawing shows, I tend to think Paul B’s explanation the correct one. In addition, every other depiction of the “Macedonian shield”, and all the examples found ( at least 5 ) have no significant rim.
The Agios Athanasios soldiers are certainly not cavalry (Macedonian cavalry almost certainly did not carry shields at this time). Nor can they be ‘Hoplites’ since their shields are clearly ‘rimless’.
Scaling them off provides rough measurements of, for the white shield, 65 cm aprox; red and blue shields 70-75 cm aprox. This is exactly within the sizes of all extant Macedonian shields (66-74 cm) – variation is because shield size is closely related to forearm length, and Asclepiodotus “8 palms” ( which is NOT two feet, but more precisely 26.25 inches/ 65.6 cm ).
The Pydna shield shown from the rear is also roughly forearm length and hence must be 65-74 cm diameter. My own rough reconstruction differed from Connolly’s in that instead of a ‘wrist-strap’, I had a conventional antilabe, placed close to the rim, exactly like the Pydna shield, and I had no problem holding both antilabe and pike with the left hand, by simply opening the fingers to enclose the shaft.
As to a telamon, such a detail was likely painted on – I can’t think off-hand of any iconographic depiction of one, can you ?
The identity of the soldier as a 'sarissaphoroi' (despite the lack of 'sarissa' - for artistic reasons) must be all but certain, since his equipment ( and that of the soldier coming to the rescue of the fallen officer ) is clearly that of an infantryman – and only 'sarissaphoroi' carried the ‘Macedonian shield’. For artistic reasons too, the monument must show the fight between Legion and Phalanx ( the Macedonian King and cavalry fled the field)