The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[PMBardunias]

Comparison with what? The Pydna monument, one other source? And if the excavators did find the detail of the shield's rim at that point less than evident, then I'm sure they would have left it blank, just like the thureos' lower half. It seems to me that like the testimony that Philopoemen employed Argive shields and that Cleomenes taught his men to wield their shields without porpakes, you simply wish to ignore this evidence, though there is no good reason to do so.

The comparison is with the other peltae on the strip. We are doing exactly the same thing when we assume that there is a bottom to the thureos on the left, though it too is missing. Except there I doubt you will find much arguement.

You are misunderstanding in "shield's rim at that point less than evident, , then I'm sure they would have left it blank". They did not leave it blank because they copied exactly what was still there (perhaps a rubbing?). What you are calling a "rim" has to be there and could not be left out because it is the outer edge of the shield's bottom, the missing part is the curve that would have joined the edge of the"rim' to the shield.

It's not much, if any steeper than the shield second from right, and we find such deeply-dished shields on other sources as well, such as coinage.

The problem is that it is not hemisphirical, but a trapezoid with a rounded top if we accept what is seen uncritically. See below for 1,000 words or so worth of picture. The shield on the left is what it would look like as you advocate. The sides are too steep and too straight, once seen in toto it really just doesn't look right. Now if we add the upper curve of the shield that should be within the demi-lune, then we get the shield on the right. This shield is hemisphirical and follows the general curvature seen in all the other peltae on the strip. Note that there is still a little rim like that seen in the peltae on the opposite side of the strip and other reliefs. I have no problem with this.

The size of the ‘Macedonian shield’ falls within strict limits governed by the length of the forearm and the need to use the left hand to grasp the sarissa – 65-74 cm.

Unless Macedonians were part Orangutang, no sarissaphoroi's forearm governed the diameter of a 74cm shield with a central porpax. At 6'3" my forearm is surely longer than most ancients, but any shield larger than 55-57cm is longer than my reach and my grip does not extend to/past the rim as Connolly recreated. That is measuring from dead center of the shield just ahead of my bent bicep, so it does not take the width of porpax into account.

So, either porpaxes were not central, the grip did not extend so close to the rim, or a compromise of the two.