The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

I see a spectrum of shield sizes, shapes, and features, while you see concrete dichotomies.

I certainly don't see a plethora of sizes and shapes, or even designs on the face, as can be seen in the diverse examples from Egypt and Macedonia.Similar size, shape, even face design. Rather I see a cluster of 'Macedonian shields' of a similar size, dictated largely by the length of the forearm ( though modifications such as a slightly off-centre porpax can allow some flexibility) and essentially rimless and designed for use with sarissa. Then there is a cluster of larger shields ( because of the rim), differently shaped, with shoulders and a large offset rim, used with single-handed spears. Have a look at Barcid's new 'argive aspis' on the "Kit" thread, and you'll see why you can't use the latter with a porpax to hold a sarissa ( which we apparently agree on )
One has only to look at any extant example to know immediately which 'type' it is. I don't believe there is any real evidence for an infinitely variable single set of shields running from 62-120 cm diameter, some rimmed, some not, across that whole spectrum, which is what you seem to be proposing.

If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist?

We don't know that a shield of 62 cm existed at all - only a carving on an unfinished monument "Approximately life-sized", and even that should more correctly read "circa 62 cm".
And the reason most were 66-70 cm ( apart from the physical/archaeological) is that this is roughly the he appropriate size for most forearms, as I have already said.

...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested.

Why not do it yourself? I have described such a simple experiment, and also told you what happens ( from my own testing) when carrying a 90 cm shield by strap alone - it is useless, and an encumbrance, and suicidal when an opponent thrusts at the face , for example. That is why, for many years, I have been convinced that Pausanias, writing long after the last sarissaphoroi had gone, was wrong to say 'argive' aspides.

And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields?

There are a number of answers to that, including an obvious one, but I will leave it to Paul B. to post.......