When was the Aspis/ Hoplon phased out ?

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Did this happen when the Greek states converted their Hoplites into Phalangites or did the Aspis already disappear long before ?
Perhaps it was already superseded by the Thureos ?

~Theo

[PMBardunias]

That depends on the polis in question. Many poleis traded their aspides for Thureos over the course of the 3rd century, while Sparta for example, traded their aspides for peltae directly under Cleomenes reforms. This tended to be a one-way street, because they might go from aspis to thureos to peltae, but they did not go back to aspides. That said, some "peltae" could be quite large, approaching the diameter of small aspides.

[MeinPanzer]

As Paul said, we really can't make any general statements. We know from a couple of inscriptions that the hoplite shield survived in use among the citizen troops of independent poleis in western Asia Minor until the late 3rd c. BC, and perhaps even into the 2nd c. BC.

while Sparta for example, traded their aspides for peltae directly under Cleomenes reforms

Maybe it's just skipping my mind, but what evidence do we have that the hoplite shield was in use in Sparta up until Cleomenes' reforms?

[Paullus Scipio]

It's "negative" evidence, Ruben and not good, or definitive ! Simply assumption from the fact that unlike many other states, we don't hear of Sparta adopting the Thureos, combined with the idea that militarily Sparta was supposedly 'conservative' ( in my view they were not, and were in the forefront, or quickly adopted new military technology and reforms)........we don't know how Sparta's army was armed at this time, until Kleomenes re-armed them in 'Macedonian fashion'......

[PMBardunias]

Maybe it's just skipping my mind, but what evidence do we have that the hoplite shield was in use in Sparta up until Cleomenes' reforms?

I get the sense that Plutarch is refering to an aspis and dory armed man with a porpax in the following passage. Do you have the greek? To me this also reads like Plutarch is drawing from an earlier source (Phylarchus?) who would be in better position to differentiate aspis and thureos than he himself. I can see a description of a change from one big round shield to another possibly big round shield with only a change of suspension in the wording much more than I can see a shift in shield shape.

Plut. Cleom. 11.2] Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle.

[Paullus Scipio]

Some, of course ( see RAT debates passim) see this passage as evidence that a Macedonian 'sarissaphoroi' could wield pike and 'aspis', others that the passage is evidence for the hanging of shields freely by straps ( there's a well known reconstruction of the phalanx where the men are shown this way)......in my view, both these interpretations are wrong, because the 'aspis' is just too large and heavy to successfully use with a 'sarissa' ( why did the Macedonians, and others armed 'Macedonian fashion' use the 'pelta' otherwise? ), and a 'hanging shield' is just a useless encumbrance ( might as well strap it in tight, and call it a 'pectorale', :lol: )

Plutarch, or more probably his source, is making a 'literary flourish' in pointing out the difference between old shields and the new type ( the strap) and in doing so has created a terrible ambiguity for us moderns ( but not for ancients familiar with the weaponry)...........if only Plutarch/his source had written something like:-

Plut. Cleom. 11.2] Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields('pelta' instead of 'aspis' for shield - we can't tell if 'aspis' means the specific 'argive aspis', or is just generic for "shield") by a strapand porpax instead of by a fixed handle.implies a 'thureos' grip? If a 'porpax'/arm-loop was meant, why not say so, and use that word? Or if the 'argive aspis' was meant then say something like " by a strap and porpax instead of by porpax alone"....

Better we did not have this ambiguous piece of 'literary flourish'/text at all, for Polybius simply tells us at Sellasia the two phalanxes (Macedonian and Spartan) were armed the same !

There would then be no grounds for the confusing speculation/interpretation...... D

[MeinPanzer]

It's best that we not rehash this debate yet again, since I think little new information can be brought to the table to change either side's stance. Nonetheless, I agree with Paul on this one: the word aspis in Plutarch's passage probably just has the generic meaning of shield, and that we can't say either way whether the Spartans were using Argive shields or thyreoi prior to the reforms. However, for other reasons (which I discussed at length in the aforementioned thread), I believe that the Spartans did make use of Argive shields, whether they were using them or thyreoi at the time of the reform or not.

Just one note:

by a strap and porpax instead of by a fixed handle. implies a 'thureos' grip? If a 'porpax'/arm-loop was meant, why not say so, and use that word? Or if the 'argive aspis' was meant then say something like " by a strap and porpax instead of by porpax alone"....

You are garbling the Greek here, which is perfectly clear. Plutarch says "kai ten aspida phorein di'ochanes, me die porpakos," which means "to bear the shield with strap, and not with porpax." He explicitly mentions the porpax, but to say that they do not use it.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben/Mein Panzer wrote:

You are garbling the Greek here, which is perfectly clear. Plutarch says "kai ten aspida phorein di'ochanes, me die porpakos," which means "to bear the shield with strap, and not with porpax." He explicitly mentions the porpax, but to say that they do not use it.

Not 'garbling' intentionally - just trying to make my point clear, for this sentence in Greek, if translated literally, is ambiguous too !!

I would interpret it as 'bear the weight of', not just 'bear= carry' because the greek root word is used, for example, of pack-horses and mules. So I believe the sense is ' bear the weight of the shield with strap, and not ( bear the weight) with porpax" - which is an accurate description of the function of the strap, which also incidently helps support the weight of the 'sarissa'too - as anyone who has tried a reproduction 'pelta' and 'sarissa' can vouch for.......

[PMBardunias]

"kai ten aspida phorein di'ochanes, me die porpakos,"

Guys, am I missing something? Doesn't the mention of a porpax guarantee he is talking of an aspis? That is why I wanted the original Greek, I remembered that he used the word porpax and not "fixed grip". Aside from perhaps Sophocles Ajax, I know of no reference to a porpax in a shield that was not an aspis.

[Paullus Scipio]

DOH!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Amazing what you can learn by checking the original Greek, isn't it ?? I had earlier assumed that 'fixed handle' was just that.....and even suggested if 'porpax' was meant, that word should have been used ( I don't connect 'porpax' with 'fixed handle' - a very poor translation as it turns out! A 'fixed handle' is what a 'thureos' has....) :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lo and behold, the original word IS 'porpax' ! :roll: :roll:

......which means we can answer the original question, thanks to removal of the ambiguity. If Plutarch and his source are correct, the Spartans went straight from
Dory/Aspis to Sarissa/Pelta ( with a nod to Ruben's interpretation that the aspis continued in use :wink: )

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben/Mein Panzer wrote:

You are garbling the Greek here, which is perfectly clear. Plutarch says "kai ten aspida phorein di'ochanes, me die porpakos," which means "to bear the shield with strap, and not with porpax." He explicitly mentions the porpax, but to say that they do not use it.

Not 'garbling' intentionally - just trying to make my point clear, for this sentence in Greek, if translated literally, is ambiguous too !!

I would interpret it as 'bear the weight of', not just 'bear= carry' because the greek root word is used, for example, of pack-horses and mules. So I believe the sense is ' bear the weight of the shield with strap, and not ( bear the weight) with porpax" - which is an accurate description of the function of the strap, which also incidently helps support the weight of the 'sarissa'too - as anyone who has tried a reproduction 'pelta' and 'sarissa' can vouch for.......

I don't think that phoreo has the specific definition of "bear the weight of." The closest definition to that in LSJ is "to bear constantly, to wear" (A, I, 2), but I think it's stretching the Greek too far to see this specific reading. Nonetheless, it is a possibility.

Guys, am I missing something? Doesn't the mention of a porpax guarantee he is talking of an aspis? That is why I wanted the original Greek, I remembered that he used the word porpax and not "fixed grip". Aside from perhaps Sophocles Ajax, I know of no reference to a porpax in a shield that was not an aspis.

The problem I have with this is that it can be interpreted two ways. One is, as you suggest, that the Spartans were using the Argive shield up until the reform, and Cleomenes simply added straps and retrained the troops. The other possibility, however, is that they were using the thyreos, and that (as I've suggested before) he drew on stocks of Argive shields from temples, old armouries, heirlooms, etc., but rather than teaching them to use it in the old fashioned way, he added the ochane and taught them to use it with the sarissa. What might make the former more likely than the latter is that the men enrolled in the ranks were perioikoi, and I don't think they were engaged in active service in Hellenistic Sparta, so they may have been very old fashioned in armament.

[PMBardunias]

I don't think that phoreo has the specific definition of "bear the weight of." The closest definition to that in LSJ is "to bear constantly, to wear" (A, I, 2), but I think it's stretching the Greek too far to see this specific reading. Nonetheless, it is a possibility.

I don't think we need plead a special definition. The plainest reading is that the first shield is carried by the porpax (into battle is implied) and the second by the strap. Obviously if you are carrying something you are continuously bearing its weight. The implication Paul applies is that they were bearing the weight, not of the shield, but of the combined shield and sarissa, which does go beyond the text.

The other possibility, however, is that they were using the thyreos, and that (as I've suggested before) he drew on stocks of Argive shields from temples, old armouries, heirlooms, etc., but rather than teaching them to use it in the old fashioned way, he added the ochane and taught them to use it with the sarissa.

I think that a bit of a stretch in the absence of any other evidence for the thureos in use at Sparta. But I think this change would not strengthen your core position in any case. First, the enrollment of so many new infantrymen could have required turning to temple dedications even if the aspis was in common use if you are correct that they could not make new peltae. Second, the sense of this passage is that men are retrained to use the shield in a new way- either the same shield type modified as you suggest, or new peltae.

A bigger question I'd like opinions on is why the states shifted to the thureos, and was Sparta subject to these same pressures. I think the answer has many facets, but I'm curious in others opinions.

[MeinPanzer]

A bigger question I'd like opinions on is why the states shifted to the thureos, and was Sparta subject to these same pressures. I think the answer has many facets, but I'm curious in others opinions.

This is actually what I'm writing something fairly long on right now, so I could probably write a lot, but I think these are a few main points.

The thyreos, according to several literary references, could be a tough and maneuverable shield. For most troops, it was better suited than a round shield because it provided more coverage for the body, which meant that if you couldn't afford body armour you could at least receive a decent amount of protection. It was also effective in close combat, as its grip allowed the bearer to move dynamically to defend himself but also to use the boss offensively against opponents. This is why it became so popular in the last three centuries BC pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

In Greece, however, the primary problem was that they changed to the thyreos, but didn't change tactics. Why? I suspect it is because the states of Greece (which, other than Sparta, were federal leagues) were lacking in resources, and so they decided to change to an economical shield type (since the Argive shield probably wasn't cheap to make) which gave them more bang for their buck in that they could arm both battle-line troops and garrison and patrol troops with it. But if they really wanted to make good use of the thyreos, they would have had to re-train, and continue to train, their troops, and they probably simply didn't have the resources available to do that.

Hence Achaea's phalanx of thyreophoroi carrying javelins which had the worst of both worlds, not being able to withstand bombardment from afar (like the Galatians facing the Aetolians in 279 BC), but also folding in close combat because they were used to fighting as hoplites in an age of long pikes and dynamic infantry. The necessity for reform is evident when we see that the Boeotian league for the first time employs a professional trainer and switches to the Macedonian phalanx after its disastrous defeat at Chaeronea in 245 BC; and also when we see Philopoemen encouraging his troops to arm themselves in full armour and to train regularly. The Achaean league needed a dynamic figure like Philopoemen to do what the state couldn't: rouse the citizen troops, get them to arm themselves (at a time when it was the norm for major states employing Macedonian phalanxes to arm their men), and train regularly.

Sparta was subject to the same pressure, but prior to Cleomenes' reforms mercenaries were widely employed. Perhaps the Spartiates did continue to fight as hoplites, but the mercenaries employed, who probably made up the majority of troops most of the time, were thyreophoroi.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

The other possibility, however, is that they were using the thyreos, and that (as I've suggested before) he drew on stocks of Argive shields from temples, old armouries, heirlooms, etc.,

'Temple trophies' is often cited as a ready source of weapons, but I very much doubt that this could be so, for anything hung outdoors in a portico will very quickly deteriorate and rot to the point of being unusable. Off the top of the head, I can think of only one instance of masses of troops being equipped from such a source, and that is Rome's emergency measure after Cannae when 6,000 convicts and debtors were enrolled in a 'Penal Legion' and equipped with Gallic trophy weapons taken down from the Temples. These had been captured and dedicated after the battle of Telamon, a mere nine years before. By contrast, the 'sphacteria shield' - a particularly choice trophy, having been taken from the Spartans - was so delapidated, the surviving 'bits' ( probably not much more than the bronze face) were thrown down a rubbish pit, around 150 years after capture. The last major battle at which the Spartans probably took large numbers of shields sufficient to equip thousands was the so-called "Tearless Battle" of 368 BC, or second Mantinea in 365 BC. Thereafter, Sparta was involved in only minor actions rather than major battles ( such as the thousand "hoplites" recorded as assisting Phokis during the 'Scared War" (Diodorus XVI.59.1), which war saw Philip of Macedon rising to dominance.)

In 225 BC or thereabouts, any possible mass of 'Temple trophies' were over 120 years old and doubtless useless.

More fatal still to such a theory is that apparently the Spartans thought it 'unworthy' to dedicate the arms of 'cowards' to the Gods, and did not dedicate trophies in their Temples ( Plut. Moralia 224B).

Paul B wrote:

Obviously if you are carrying something you are continuously bearing its weight.

Rueben wrote:

I don't think that phoreo has the specific definition of "bear the weight of." The closest definition to that in LSJ is "to bear constantly, to wear" (A, I, 2), but I think it's stretching the Greek too far to see this specific reading. Nonetheless, it is a possibility.

In support of the idea that 'bear' means in the sense of weight, I would re-iterate that the Greek root word can be applied to pack-horses etc...
e.g. 'phora' can mean a load, freight or a burden (LSJ); 'phoreion' is a beast of burden; Plutarch himself uses the word 'phora' in this sense in his 'Life of Mark Anthony' LXVIII, when he describes the Antonian's lack of pack-animals, and how his grandfather was one of those 'burdened' with corn and used as human pack-animals.

Paul B wrote:

The implication Paul applies is that they were bearing the weight, not of the shield, but of the combined shield and sarissa, which does go beyond the text.

I don't believe I implied this at all, merely pointing out 'incidently' that it could be so used, as an aside from the text.

Ruben wrote:

This is actually what I'm writing something fairly long on right now, so I could probably write a lot, but I think these are a few main points.

Needless to say, I look forward to reading this !! D

The thyreos, according to several literary references, could be a tough and maneuverable shield. For most troops, it was better suited than a round shield because it provided more coverage for the body, which meant that if you couldn't afford body armour you could at least receive a decent amount of protection. It was also effective in close combat, as its grip allowed the bearer to move dynamically to defend himself but also to use the boss offensively against opponents. This is why it became so popular in the last three centuries BC pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

I would entirely agree with Ruben here - a better individual defence, easier to manufacture, and in theory at least, effective both for the individual skirmisher/peltast and for the line infantry. This led to the blurring of the distinction between the old 'peltasts' ( skirmishers with small light shields fighting in open order) and 'Hoplites'( men-at-arms with larger heavier shields who fought in close order - the phalanx), and hopefully a new 'all-round' troop-type who could function as both (hence we no longer hear of 'mercenary peltasts' or 'mercenary hoplites', but a generally single troop-type,'mistophoroi'/wage-earners/mercenaries (though specialist archers or slingers could be referred to by this name also, when used generally it means troops equipped with the 'thureos')

In Greece, however, the primary problem was that they changed to the thyreos, but didn't change tactics. Why? I suspect it is because the states of Greece (which, other than Sparta, were federal leagues) were lacking in resources, and so they decided to change to an economical shield type (since the Argive shield probably wasn't cheap to make) which gave them more bang for their buck in that they could arm both battle-line troops and garrison and patrol troops with it. But if they really wanted to make good use of the thyreos, they would have had to re-train, and continue to train, their troops, and they probably simply didn't have the resources available to do that.

Hence Achaea's phalanx of thyreophoroi carrying javelins which had the worst of both worlds, not being able to withstand bombardment from afar (like the Galatians facing the Aetolians in 279 BC), but also folding in close combat because they were used to fighting as hoplites in an age of long pikes and dynamic infantry. The necessity for reform is evident when we see that the Boeotian league for the first time employs a professional trainer and switches to the Macedonian phalanx after its disastrous defeat at Chaeronea in 245 BC; and also when we see Philopoemen encouraging his troops to arm themselves in full armour and to train regularly. The Achaean league needed a dynamic figure like Philopoemen to do what the state couldn't: rouse the citizen troops, get them to arm themselves (at a time when it was the norm for major states employing Macedonian phalanxes to arm their men), and train regularly.

Again, I would agree with most of the above, save that I think that 'thureos' armed troops turned out not to be quite so effective as the 'argive aspis' in the 'hoplite shield wall', for the cohesion of touching/overlapping shields was lacking. ( The 'thureos is described as 'too narrow' by commentators, and this surely means for hoplite use, lacking the width of an 'aspis'). Certainly a phalanx of 'thureos/longche/spear/javelin' armed phalanx could not generally prevail against a 'Macedonian' phalanx, hence the Boeotian switch. In Achea's case, Plutarch(IX) describing Philopoemen's reforms, tells us (contra Ruben above) that the Achaean 'thuroephoroi' :
".... were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed, but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage......without either a levelled line of spears or wall of interlocking shields such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered" ( when fighting in "solid phalanx").
It is interesting that the 'new model' Macedonian style phalanx defeated the Spartan 'hoplites' at Mantinea in 207 BC ( admittedly with the aid of a ditch) [Polyb XI.11-18.; Plutarch ' Philopoemen' X].
Even the Romans had significant problems taking on a 'Macedonian phalanx' frontally. I suspect a battle between two 'thureos' armed phalanxes would have been a much more even contest, so to that extent the 'thureos' armed phalanx was probably successful. The problem, as for the Romans, was when it came up against a 'Macedonian phalanx'.
Ruben wrote:

Sparta was subject to the same pressure, but prior to Cleomenes' reforms mercenaries were widely employed. Perhaps the Spartiates did continue to fight as hoplites, but the mercenaries employed, who probably made up the majority of troops most of the time, were thyreophoroi.

I would agree that most 'mistophoroi/mercenaries' at this time, whether Spartan or not, would have been 'thureophoroi', but it should be emphasised that it was 4,000 perioikoi/country Lacedaemonians, whom Cleomenes re-armed in 'Macedonian fashion' to fill out the citizen body, rather than any mercenary 'thureophoroi' ( who fought separately from the phalanx at Sellasia).(Plutarch Cleomenes XI). As to the 'citizens/homioi', there were fewer than a thousand of these at this time, until Cleomenes reforms re-distributed land, thus created a new 'citizen' class.

[ As an aside, it was this overwhelming success of the 'Macedonian style phalanx' in a number of battles against a 'thureos' or 'aspis' armed phalanx, that led to general Greek astonishment at the success of Roman 'thureophoroi' against the 'Macedonian phalanx', hence the need for Polybius to explain in detail how the Romans had beaten the Macedonian phalanx - describing the weapons and tactics of each in detail, which has given us so much of what we know about the weapons and tactics of the time....]

[PMBardunias]

The thyreos, according to several literary references, could be a tough and maneuverable shield. For most troops, it was better suited than a round shield because it provided more coverage for the body, which meant that if you couldn't afford body armour you could at least receive a decent amount of protection. It was also effective in close combat, as its grip allowed the bearer to move dynamically to defend himself but also to use the boss offensively against opponents. This is why it became so popular in the last three centuries BC pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

I agree with all of this, but in opposition is Plutarch phillipoemen 9 (what Paul referred to above):

9 In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body;

I think Paul hit upon the answer, they are "too narrow" only in the sense that they cannot overlap as well. But I must admit that some thureos are very narrow at top and bottom, more diamond than square or oval shaped. In any case, as you note, the key is a dynamic use of the shield. Holding any shield at arms length in the hand greatly improves its coverage. A quick and easy test of this property of distance from the body is to simply shine a flashlight on the shield at each position and see how the shadow increases. But this is indivudual protection and requires room to move.

In Greece, however, the primary problem was that they changed to the thyreos, but didn't change tactics. Why? I suspect it is because the states of Greece (which, other than Sparta, were federal leagues) were lacking in resources, and so they decided to change to an economical shield type (since the Argive shield probably wasn't cheap to make) which gave them more bang for their buck in that they could arm both battle-line troops and garrison and patrol troops with it. But if they really wanted to make good use of the thyreos, they would have had to re-train, and continue to train, their troops, and they probably simply didn't have the resources available to do that.

I'm not sure I can sign on to that one. Surely behavioral modification is much cheaper than investment in hardware. I would perhaps chalk it up to a lack of training through apathy not cost- light infantry often requires more training to keep order than men lined up in ranks.

I don't believe I implied this at all, merely pointing out 'incidently' that it could be so used, as an aside from the text.

I projected my thought onto you! Because a pelta had a porpax and an aspis was often carried by a "strap" when not in combat, I believe the original intent of the quote was to show that the pelta and arm with sarissa were all supported by the ochane. To me the only other interpretation that make sense is that the shield simply hangs from the ochane in battle and is not on the arm. I find this unlikely for many reasons.

I have wondered about the role of misthophoroi in the adoption of the thureos and longche/javelins. If the varous macedonian employers were hiring trrops to compliment their own heavy sarissaphoroi, the market may have driven the troop types opened to greeks- many of whom ended up in garrison duty if I recall correctly. Didn't something like this happen with the Romans and their auxillae?

I should note that for those so inclined, the inability of hoplites to regularly enter othismos with sarissaphoroi is an obvious reason for the adoption of a new, less pecialized, shield type. Instead Thureophoroi became something like the American heavy frigates- able to defeat all the normal "lights" in close combat and get out of the way of the true "heavies" and throw things at them.