The Boiotian Shield

[caiusbeerquitius]

Similar arguments can be made regarding the tube and yoke corselet in this period, as there are no survivals.

Yes, but the T&Y is testified from (among) "Celtic" (Glauberg), from Samnite, and from Etruscan evidence as well. So is the round aspis. Is the Boeotian shield?

[nikolaos]

Paul B:

Sorry if there was some confusion there on the topic of chariots. I believe that they existed (as they raced them in the Olympic games) but not that they are used on the battlefield

My argument on the point is that the vase art in the period in question depicts the chariot in both heroic (battlefield use) and contemporary (racing) manners. As such, it serves as a corollary to the argument, as depictions of warriors with boeotians which are not "heroic" may represent contemporary usage.

Paul MS:

As Boardman believes the Boeotian is a real shield trying to use him in an argument against it is pretty weak.

You also write:
"To take but one example, the subject matter of Athenian Red Figure Ware changes rapidly following the Persian Wars and Marathon, as I have noted several times here on RAT. Whereas previously, warrior depictions had been exclusively of Gods and Heroes - mythological subjects, and hence depicted with known 'archaic' weapons, such as Boeotian shields; after Marathon, for the first time, Contemporary 'Heroes' are seen as fit to depict"

While I've heard this argument elsewhere, and it doesn't hold much water no matter how many times its repeated. You can claim that red figure warrior figures before 500 like:

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/rec ... unt=76&id= {C675523A-DEA0-4B81-BFA7-116D96B39142}&fileName=IMAGES200%2FUSA35%2FCVA%2EUSA35%2E1822%2E1%2F&returnPage=&start=0

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/rec ... unt=78&id= {FC8B25A9-D4CE-4BDB-8F79-8FDF597FCCF9}&returnPage=&start=0

Are gods/heroes, but its just an assertion, there is nothing to back it up. In these examples, none are named as heroes, there are no gods depicted, and the scenes are generic, not specific.

Also, cavalry and horse archers aren't big legendary/mythical figures in Greece:

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/rec ... unt=78&id= {FC8B25A9-D4CE-4BDB-8F79-8FDF597FCCF9}&fileName=IMAGES100%2F200%2F200029%2EI%2F&returnPage=&start=0

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/xdb/ASP/rec ... unt=18&id= {14C95B25-2CA0-4D0A-B9A9-3485A6DA50AB}&fileName=IMAGES100%2F200%2F20080%2EI%2F&returnPage=&start=0

They're reality. So its a pretty big stretch to claim that warrior subject matter is exclusively gods and heroes.

And while I agree that there is no archaeological evidence that we know of, your arguments on the iconography are weak, particulary as Boardman disagrees with you.

Which, really, is sufficient for me to say the Boeotian may have existed, all the rest of my points merely serve to show this is not an unreasonable position to take.

Similarly, you could be right. But then you could be wrong. But you have to be reasonable and admit that there is that possibility. Certainty has no place among amateurs.

Have fun,
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

Nikolaos/Cole wrote:

As Boardman believes the Boeotian is a real shield trying to use him in an argument against it is pretty weak.

...I don't believe this is correct, and I notice you don't cite your source for this.
AFIK, Boardman has this to say on the subject: ( 'The History of Greek vases'; Thames and Hudson, 2001 p.192)
"...reflect the figure-of-eight shields of the bronze age and indicate a heroic occasion, but they are just highly stylised renderings of the usual shields of hide stretched over a frame, which by around 700 BC were generally displaced by round shields.These will serve the new new styles of Hoplite fighting in Greece, and are seen defeating the old shield types on several Geometric vases." Incidently, here is another source of artistic continuity, and yet another is bronze belt plaques and shield bands decorated with depictions of this 'archaic' shield.
He goes on to add in a footnote: "The later 'Boeotian' shield with small cutouts and like a Hoplite shield, but worn with a baldric, MAY be a parade shield and often shown for heroes, and also on Boeotian coins"
He also cites with approval Prof T.H. Carpenter 'Art and Myth in Ancient Greece' (Thames and Hudson 1991), who has this to say on the subject p.199:"The inclusion of 'Boeotian' shields on Attic vases often hints at an heroic meaning since such shields never actually existed, but are reminiscent of the Mycenaean figure-of-eight shields."

So its a pretty big stretch to claim that warrior subject matter is exclusively gods and heroes.

...yet that is the view of our foremost experts on the subject ! - see my earlier post quoting Boardman's view that historical scenes arrived after Marathon. ( save perhaps for some arming and departure scenes)

Clearly Boardman does NOT believe they were in use by real Hoplites/Warriors, even in the period 650-550 BC, let alone later.

....Are gods/heroes, but its just an assertion, there is nothing to back it up.

...except the opinions of the best experts - see my post above ! :wink:

In these examples, none are named as heroes, there are no gods depicted, and the scenes are generic, not specific.

...generic scenes can almost always be identified/tied to a particular myth, even where characters are not named, because the composition will be identical/similar to a named one, or the Myth will be an obvious one....so much so that scenes can nbe added to Mythology. The frequently depicted Ajax and Achilles board-game scene is not referred to in the extant versions of the "Iliad", for example.

Also, cavalry and horse archers aren't big legendary/mythical figures in Greece:

...a broad assertion ! Amazonomachies with mounted women in scythian dress, Thessalian Heroes, Herakles and the Horses of Diomedes are among the most popular themes.....

Which, really, is sufficient for me to say the Boeotian may have existed, all the rest of my points merely serve to show this is not an unreasonable position to take.

Similarly, you could be right. But then you could be wrong. But you have to be reasonable and admit that there is that possibility. Certainty has no place among amateurs.

...certainly, and I said this from my first post on this thread.....but 'possible' is not 'probable', and like I said, the overall weight of evidence is against the idea of 'Boeotian' shields in use c.500 BC.
I would not count myself an 'amateur' save in the sense that we all are.
Certainty has no place among 'professionals' either..... D

[MeinPanzer]

Sorry Cole, but I don't find this argument at all persuasive. Firstly if dozens of 'aspides' finds at Olympia over a several hundred year period, but not a single 'Boeotian' ,can be dismissed as "not statistically significant" (from among tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds, then surely hundreds, or even a couple of thousand survivors of pottery from among millions of artifacts may not be"statistically significant" either ?

While Cole's statistical analysis may be flawed, this line of counterargument is even more so, as you are not accounting for the very nature of the artefacts here. How many peltae of the Classical period have been found? How many Persian gerrha?

[Paullus Scipio]

I was trying to point out that it was Cole's argument that was flawed, not make the same flawed point by way of counter-argument!
"statistically significant" is not a valid argument, because surviving ancient artifacts are always few, compared to the number of originals. Nor can one point to survival of a 'few' artifacts as "statistically insignificant" compared to 'many' in another instance. It is the relative number of survivors to originals that may make artifacts "statistically significant", and even then, only for some few purposes.....

[PMBardunias]

Sorry if there was some confusion there on the topic of chariots. I believe that they existed (as they raced them in the Olympic games) but not that they are used on the battlefield. My argument on the point is that the vase art in the period in question depicts the chariot in both heroic (battlefield use) and contemporary (racing) manners. As such, it serves as a corollary to the argument, as depictions of warriors with boeotians which are not "heroic" may represent contemporary usage.

Cole, you misunderstand my misunderstanding Your analogy shows exactly the opposite of what you intend it to. It shows that an archaic element- Dipylon shield or War chariot- can survive in a culture as a real article whose usage has become completely stylized. Just as no war chariot was seen alongside hoplites in 500 BC, chariots only surviving as a toy for symbolic competition, so no dipylon shield was seen on a battlefield in 500 BC, the boeotian shield type surviving as a symbolic rememberance of the earlier dipylon shield. They probably only existed in art, but perhaps were even built and used in symbolic processions and such. The retention of chariots shows how and why this might occur.

[nikolaos]

Paul MS,

I have it right in front of me, although I didn't the other day. Fully expanding your quote, it reads,

"There has been support too for the view that the big oval shields with side cutouts, the so called Dipylon shields, reflect the figure of eight shields of the bronze age and indicate a heroic occasion, but they are just highly stylized renderings of the usual shields of hide stretched over a frame, which by around 700 BC were generally displaced with round shields."

He also says on the same page:

"It is difficult to uncover any true archaizing of of equipment or dress in Greek art, at any period, or indeed the invention of any plausible but long-lost gear; it is all in modern dress."

Which would tend to contradict your opinion that the Boeotian shield was an invention.

He also earlier reports,

And as the footnote you quote states, he believes that the later shield may have existed.

From all these quotes we can see quite clearly that he believes the dipylon existed, it was not a misrepresentation of a half remembered "convention", and that he also believes that the later shield may well have existed.

And unlike you all I'm arguing is that it may have existed. And if it may have existed, its worth trying to reproduce, as using one will give further insights to fill in the gaps left in the historical record.

"A very high proportion of the figure scenes on Greek vases deals with the subjects of myth. The few that present everyday life, increasingly in the late archaic and classical periods, often give it also a heroic flavour."

And there is nothing exclusive, as you claim, about that, especially when you combine it with the earlier quote about archaizing.

Lets reduce this to a question though. Are you willing to admit the Boeotian MAY have existed, in some role in late archaic Greece, yes or no?

Thanks,
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

He is talking about the Di-pylon shield from an earlier era, as it is drawn on "Geometric" style vases....I did not bring this into the discussion because it would merely confuse matters with yet another style of shield.The point is, as he says, that if the iconography on pottery is to be believed, the round shield replaced c.700 BC. ( as a battle shield). He then goes on to say in a footnote, as I quoted quite correctly, that in his view the later 'Boeotian' may have existed.

From all these quotes we can see quite clearly that he believes the dipylon existed, it was not a misrepresentation of a half remembered "convention", and that he also believes that the later shield may well have existed.

...based on the pottery evidence alone, be it remembered !....and like me, he only allows that it was possible, not probable.

Which would tend to contradict your opinion that the Boeotian shield was an invention.

I don't recall saying this!

And unlike you all I'm arguing is that it may have existed. And if it may have existed, its worth trying to reproduce, as using one will give further insights to fill in the gaps left in the historical record.

....and here is where your "special pleading" comes in, because you guys want to build one or more for re-enactment, you "want" it to exist. You have what lawyers call a conflict of interest in examining the evidence ( such as it is), which means, as you have demonstrated in this thread, that you have a bias, and are not able to look at the evidence dipassionately or objectively.

"A very high proportion of the figure scenes on Greek vases deals with the subjects of myth. The few that present everyday life, increasingly in the late archaic and classical periods, often give it also a heroic flavour."

And there is nothing exclusive, as you claim, about that, especially when you combine it with the earlier quote about archaizing.

A gross mis-interpretation again. He is here referring quite clearly to ALL subjects, and pointing out that only a few refer to "everyday life" - women spinning, a marriage etc. His view on warrior depictions I have quoted earlier. "Real" warriors are not depicted until after Marathon. Significantly also, no real warrior after Marathon is depicted with a Boeotian - making it even more likely that it should be consigned to mythology.

Lets reduce this to a question though. Are you willing to admit the Boeotian MAY have existed, in some role in late archaic Greece, yes or no?

Were these not plain enough?

...certainly, and I said this from my first post on this thread.....but 'possible' is not 'probable', and like I said, the overall weight of evidence is against the idea of 'Boeotian' shields in use c.500 BC.

There is no archaeological evidence for the use of the 'Heroic' so-called Boeotian shield by Hoplites ( so far), and the artists confused depictions of it surely indicate that they were not familiar with it , as Paul B. suggested.

In fact, archaeology suggests the opposite to your surmise - older equipment etc rapidly disappeared....the earlier helmet types, the thigh and upper arm armour, the bronze 'Bell' cuirass etc
Without wishing to be categorical, I think the weight of evidence runs against the 'Boeotian' shield existing in Greece c. 500 B.C. - disappointing perhaps for those like Christian/Kineas who want to wield one in re-enactment !!

I don't have a viewpoint on the existence circa 500 BC of the so-called "Boeotian" shield, but given Hoplite tactics, I doubt it, unless it took the form of the circular shield with cutouts at the side to look vaguely like the 'Heroic' type....

Re-stated, if we look at the iconographic pottery evidence alone, then as Boardman thinks, it is possible such a shield MAY have existed. Though, as he also points out, when depicted it is the atribute of mythological heroes from a time 'long ago', even if these wear contemporary clothes. Compare Shakespeare plays done in modern dress ( though here it is probably because the artists had no idea what their ancestors wore); something is always included to remind audiences that we are not contemporary - the set, or the use of archaic speech etc. There are many artistic conventions in pottery art, and I would suggest depicting a 'Boeotian' shield to emphasise past Heroics is likely one of them.
If we add in the fact that not one shred of archaeological evidence exists ( so far) to suggest such a shield, then the weight of evidence becomes clear - they possibly existed in 500 BC, but if so were probably not used in warfare or the Hoplite Phalanx for obvious reasons. On balance of probability, looking at all the evidence, not just numbers of depictions, it is unlikely that, even if a few did exist ( after all, perhaps Kineas had his counterpart in Athens who, seeing one on a pot, fancied having one) they were ever used in battle.

[nikolaos]

Paul MS,

When dealing with systemic disagreement such as we have here I always believe its important to start looking for the sources of the disagreement. I so think we're destined to disagree here because of viewpoint. The fact that my views on hoplite warfare tend to sources that question the evolution of hoplite warfare as you see it doesn't help either. My concern about the value of the interpretation of Boeotian is that we may actually gain some insight into what led to its demise (as I do believe it disappeared in Greece, we can argue the question of when at a later date by doing so. But by arguing too strongly I believe you discourage experimentation just because you lie on the other side of the "may" divide. But that is like saying no to adding data points to our study of greek military history through. As it is rife with "mays", and there is room for a lot of disagreement, I believe it is better to take an encouraging position towards the "mays" to promote experimentation.

Also, I've found the Boardman article which originally sparked my belief that that it is reasonable to believe the Boeotian existed , when he took the opportunity to comment in his review of "The Galloping Majors" in the Classical Review vol 25 No 2:

"The general conclusion is one which becomes increasingly apparent in many departments of Greek art and life-that they were prepared to anachronize, archaize, mythologize behaviour, but not equipment-always 'in modern dress', except, rarely and not completely efficiently, in Homer when it comes to the use of bronze or tower shields which may have become set in the story long before and so do not affect the generalization as applied to later authors and artists. It becomes, then, increasingly difficult to believe that the 'Boeotian' shield is a solitary and incredibly long-lived and widespread exception."

Have fun!
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

So, then, you rely solely on the opinions of Boardman, who only ever went so far as to allow that 'Boeotian shields may have existed......and again you don't say when he thought this - his later opinions as of 2001 I have previously quoted. What of the professor (whom Boardman cited with approval) that I also quoted, who stated they never existed ?(BTW, it was he who updated Beazley's work, lest anyone doubt his expertise). Granted, these are only opinions in the end - and based only on the pottery evidence at that, unless in arriving at these views they were aware of the lack of archaeological evidence......
In any case, Boardman's statement:

"The general conclusion is one which becomes increasingly apparent in many departments of Greek art and life-that they were prepared to anachronize, archaize, mythologize behaviour, but not equipment-always 'in modern dress', except, rarely and not completely efficiently, in Homer when it comes to the use of bronze or tower shields which may have become set in the story long before and so do not affect the generalization as applied to later authors and artists. It becomes, then, increasingly difficult to believe that the 'Boeotian' shield is a solitary and incredibly long-lived and widespread exception."

The latter part is demonstrably incorrect – for example warriors continue to mount and dismount from chariots, long after they disappear from the battlefield, Heracles and Teucer continue to wield bows long after the bow disappears from Greek battlefields ( not to mention Heracles club)….and others too. The Boeotian is far from the ‘solitary…exception'.

[nikolaos]

Paul MS,

>So, then, you rely solely on the opinions of Boardman

Paul, you need to chill out a bit. This isn't a courtroom.

As I clearly just said it was a comment by Boardman that sparked my belief. Others have also influenced this opinion. I also do not discard out of hand the opinion of scholars like Snodgrass and so forth that argue against it. But in the balance, my feelings lie on the other side of the line from yours.

In part this is due to the lack of falsifiability of the arguments that it did not exist. Even a hypothetical archeological recovery could easily be dismissed as an oddity or parade shield, as it is unlikely that a battlefield recovery of a shield will be made. On the other hand, falsifiability of my position can be gained through constructing and experimenting with the Boeotian shield, hence my feeling that its important to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging.

For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.

In this final comment lies the heart of the problem. These are all theories, and theories must be tested. Vase art is only one tool for examining theories, and not a conclusive one. Similarly traditional archeology can only tell us so much. Its for this reason that battlefield archeology (the greatest exploder of armchair theories I've yet to see) and experimental archeology have arisen as serious disciplines.

And while we may be amateurs, if we have the ability to experiment, we should, and should encourage others to do the same as opposed to dismissing options based on whatever theory we happen to hold dear.

After all, this isn't religion, although the acceptance of the beliefs of others practiced by the Greeks might be a good model for us to emulate

Have fun!
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul, you need to chill out a bit. This isn't a courtroom.

...fear not! I'm pretty cool, nor do I take myself too seriously, hence my light-hearted reference to 'kindred spirits' in Athens to Kineas......and similar remarks. :wink: :wink:

Nevertheless, a line of argument that boils down to "you can't prove it didn't exist, therefore it did" is just not persuasive at the end of the day. For now at least, we should side with the weight of evidence, which strongly suggests that such shields were not in common use in warfare in 500 BC. Nor does the weight of evidence suggest that the Phalanx was in a state of flux at this time, but rather that the Argive aspis and accompanying tactics had been accepted, and had emerged some 1-200 years earlier, and had simply continued to evolve since then........

For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.

.....one doesn't need to 'build one' to know that any "tests", which are only going to be subjective anyway, are not going to prove anything one way or another. Nor does it take a reproduction to show that such a shield is incompatible with phalanx tactics.....but hey, don't let that spoil your fun! Do it anyway !

Have fun !
Paul Mac

[PMBardunias]

On the other hand, falsifiability of my position can be gained through constructing and experimenting with the Boeotian shield, hence my feeling that its important to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging.

Cole, my theories on the aspis formed as much from the experience of reenactors as from historical or archaeological sources, so there should be no doubt that I value this type of inquiry. That said, recreation can provide exactly the wrong answer because we have to make som many interpretations along the way. I have spent a lot of time over the years sifting through the experiences of reenactors who have come to exactly the opposite conclusions- and that about elements for which we have real models.

For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.

A hand held pelta (or perhaps an animal skin draped over the arm :wink: ) is probably superior to the aspis in single combat, so this will not be too hard. If the boeotian were single/center gripped it would be something like a thureos and everyone I know who has used both aspis and Scutum tell me that the scutum is far superior for single combat. History would seem to bear this out. Held with a porpax in the center, you simply get a more narrow shield covering the body and a wing-like projection out past the elbow. Hard to see and advantage.

For some of the late "boeotians" it is hard to see that they would be any improvement over an aspis, because they are essentially an aspis with cut outs right over the throat and genitals hock: The idea that you would cut the rim within inches of connecting so needlessly weakens the shield that I cannot believe this was done.

[PMBardunias]

Tangentially related and I don't know if everyone can access it, but this is interesting:

Drift and Selection in Greek figure painted pottery http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14731/1/14731_Vol_1.pdf