The Boiotian Shield

[PMBardunias]

A French scholars argues H's gold digging ants (which are described as being the size of small dogs and furry) are actually a kind of Asian Marmot that behaves pretty much as H describes Apparently the neat coincidence is their name is awfully close to the Greek for Ant

I've read this theory, and it may well be correct, but I think mine is better for a few reasons: 1) A Sanskrit test, the Brihat Samhita (505-587 AD) describes using termite mounds to find ore deposits, so the concept was known in the region. Obviously the date it much later, but the termites have been doing it long before we showed up, so there is no reason to expect that it was not known earlier. 2) Why do they need to wait for the hottest part of the day and flee from marmots?? If they were termites this would make sense, not the fleeing per se, but the notion that you should do it during the heat of day when the termites have pulled back from the surface of the mound. They don't like being disturbed and depending on the species can be quite nasty, with soldiers biting you painfully. 3) Termites attack in swarms, Marmots don't "muster". 4) Termites look just like "greek ants"- moreso because to many cultures termites are simply "white ants".

Edit: Out of curiosity i did a quick search on Gold and Termites. This is from a modern article on termites in Africa being used to find gold and is most interesting in light of H's description:

Their tiny jaws can give a nasty bite, too. Petts claims she has mostly escaped that, partly by working during the heat of the day when the termites retreat underground. She has apparently fared better than North, who has been termite bait in Africa many times. Simon Bolster, a geochemist with Newmont Mining Corporation, has far freakier tales from Africa. He once saw six snakes, including two cobras, inside a mound. "Since then I have always been very wary when sampling termite mounds," he says.

Against this we have one line: "...in size somewhat less than dogs, but bigger than foxes". This too may be explainable. Many animals make their homes in termite mounds. Jackals, Honey badgers, and striped hyaenas all fit the bill for a size between fox and dog- you could not ask for a better description of a jackal for example. All of these might chase you if they had cubs in a den there. Of the three, the most interesting to me is the Striped Hyaena. The Persian King evidently had some of the animal (ant or perhaps just something associated with the ants). If you gave a marmot, overgrown rat, to the Shah of Shahs as a pet I doubt you'd last long at court, but a striped Hyaena is a beautiful animal- like a cross between a Zebra and a dog, with a long crest along the spine. They evidently make decent pets as well.

[Paullus Scipio]

Perhaps the subject of gold-digging Ants/Termites/ Critters should be moved to off-topic, fascinating as it is, o "termite-meister" ? :wink: :wink: D lol:

[nikolaos]

Paul MS,

Two good points, but its also important to consider that Herodotus shows no qualms about commenting when he feels that the statements he has recorded are of dubious authenticity or propoganda, such as the attempt by some Athenians to brand the Alcaeomenidae as the traitors who raised the shield at Marathon.

Even if the case is overstated, it doesn't diminish the significance of the Athenian victory over the Persians. Its a really big deal, and enough that a decade later the Spartans are willing to give precedence to the Athenians for it over their more traiditional allies, the Tegeans at Tegea. These are the same Spartans who doubt their own ability against the Persians enough to suggest swapping positions with the Athenians.

So the Athenians certainly did something exceptional at Marathon, and Herodotus comment that the Athenians were the first that, "we know of" to charge at a run against the enemy is also significant. This is pretty outrageous if it had been common practice for over a century, as you suggest, yet doesn't even draw a whimper from the frequently suspicious chronicler. In addition, using a collective "we" is also a lot more powerful than his usual "I" seems to be a statement that this is a more widely held view.

That being the case, I don't believe it is outrageous to theorize that hoplite warfare and the phalanx is still evolving at the end of the archaic period. And if it is still evolving, there is room to accept the possibility that there are holdovers to older styles of combat and older pieces of equipment.

And the gold digging ants/termites/marmots/whatever, are very much on point. If outrageous details of Herodotus' inquiries can be found to have a basis in fact, we must consider the possibility that other statements are also credible in the absence of hard evidence to support or refute them.

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

And the gold digging ants/termites/marmots/whatever, are very much on point.

Yea, what he said! besides I don't know how to move it.

Evidently, and not suprisingly, I see that others have made the connection to termites long before me. I did find a description of the "ants" by Pliny:"in color they resemble cats, but are the size of wolves." Sounds like a striped hyaena to me, see below compared to a Pakistani marmot. They must have simply conflated the hyaena and the termites in the mound they denned in.

[Kineas]

See Hans van Wees, "The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century" for this. He is one of, if not the strongest proponents of the existence of the Boeotian shield and the late development of the phalanx, and he addresses just about all of your points, especially the Chigi vase and the other depictions of warfare which have been pointed to as evidence of the phalanx being in use in the seventh century. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I think his main point - that the iconographic evidence does not prove that the phalanx in the sense that Thucydides knew it was in use at this time, and that the literary evidence shows that such phalanx combat was not known by the time of Tyrtaeus - is an important one and well made. He also makes a few good points about the general use of the Argive shield which a lot of people seem to miss. As he points out, the men on the Chigi vase all carry two spears - the second ones, held in their shield hands, are very faded, but are still visible on good reproductions of the vases.

I have tio concur with this. Now that I know that there's a second vase by the Chigi painter, for instance, with a remarkably different representation--and that's one of hundreds of points in vase and pictorial representation--I'd be bold enough to say there's virtually no evidence for a phalanx before 550, and maybe later.

Now, part of this is because there's vvirtually no evidence, period. And i think we all understand that, but it is worth saying that we're trying to reason from extrememly tenuous data.

That said, though, it seems ot me that the argument for the existence of the pre-550 BC phlalnx is circular and goes like this:

1) The aspis and hoplite armor is only useful in a phalanx
2) Images of hoplites in hoplite panoply start appearing in the 8th or 7th c. depending on some fairly difficult artistic arguments not cogent here

Thus, depictions of individual hoplites from 750-650 BC indicate the existence of a hoplite phalanx.

My counter goes like this:

1)The hoplite panoply is designed for single combat/small group combat. Some armchair general asserted the opposite--not a man who fights behind an aspis.

2) there's evidence to support a variety of shield changes in the mid-late 6th c., as well as a democratization of equipment--cheaper helmets, a cheap corselet (around 550-525) etc...

3) Perhaps most important, even a cursory reading of Herodotus and the other period sources will show that the roots of democracy do not lie in the deep past, but in the very period of Herodotus's history--that's what he's writing about! When I read his account of the Ionian Revolt, I think he's saying that the Ionians failed because they don't have what Athens had--the democratization of war and the consequent enormous increase in manpower.

Do we believe that the Ionians had a phalanx? I don't think so. But that's just me.

Thanks to mein panzer for reminding me of an excellent piece!

I could go on... but I'll spare you....

[PMBardunias]

The hoplite panoply is designed for single combat/small group combat

Well I know what single combat is, but what is "small group combat"? Seems to me that like politics all combat is local, so once you have a "small group" you may as well be in a phalanx- lots of small groups side by side.

Perhaps the problem once again is a lack of good definition for a "phalanx".

[Paullus Scipio]

Cole/Nikolaos wrote:

Even if the case is overstated, it doesn't diminish the significance of the Athenian victory over the Persians. Its a really big deal, and enough that a decade later the Spartans are willing to give precedence to the Athenians for it over their more traiditional allies, the Tegeans at Tegea. These are the same Spartans who doubt their own ability against the Persians enough to suggest swapping positions with the Athenians.

Sure....I would agree all this. Marathon was a big deal....the first rebuff of the Persian 'strangers' ( even if the Athenians propagandised a 'rafia' ( punitive raid) into an 'invasion', and certainly enough to impress even Sparta.

That being the case, I don't believe it is outrageous to theorize that hoplite warfare and the phalanx is still evolving at the end of the archaic period. And if it is still evolving, there is room to accept the possibility that there are holdovers to older styles of combat and older pieces of equipment.

...I have said all along that the 'Hoplite Revolution' was in the distant past, with the change of shield grip on circular shields from central grip to 'porpax' type, and that thereafter it was 'evolutionary' down to Hellenistic times. As to 'older styles of combat', certainly phalanx warfare was not universally adopted - the use of throwing spears and a looser order continued in the mountainous parts of Greece, Macedonia and the rest of the Balkans for instance. Aren't we here talking of the Hoplites of a city-state circa 500 B.C. though ? 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. They even conflated the design into a circular 'argive aspis' shape with a couple of cutouts. And clearly all these depictions are of ancient heroes, not contemporary real soldiers ( hence room for some rather fantastical elements such as the fancy dog etc crest supports - though equally fantastic crests did exist in the Mediterranean world)
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 !! :wink:

[PMBardunias]

I thought I would post this image from the dig at Olympia. Love to see these shields- hope they still exist in a well preserved state.

[Phalanx300]

About those saying that a Aspis is no good in individual combat, I disagree, a well trained man could probably make good use of it. Though the Boiotian shield was probably more individually orientated.

This is a interesting video on Hoplite individual warfare with a Aspis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjjU6tSUp34

I'm wondering whether a shield wall would be possible with a boiotian shield? When the lines meet then the holes in the side of the shields aren't available targets(before they meet it would mean losing your spear).

[PMBardunias]

About those saying that a Aspis is no good in individual combat, I disagree, a well trained man could probably make good use of it.

Anything can be used for individual combat, its a question of it being better than the alternatives available. My understanding, from the mechanics involved and from a relatively large sample of reenactors over that past half-decade I have been collecting anectdotes, is that the double grip aspis is inferior to a single/central grip shield of similar size for one on one combat. One fellow, he may even be on this site, went so far as to regularly hold the aspis by its porpax in order to weild it effectively against other scutum-type shields.

I think it is silly to say that the aspis was unsuitable for individual combat, for surely it was used in this way often once one formation gave way- when the teachings of hoplomachoi became useful. Better to consider it a compromise between value within a phalanx and single use. Just as stupid is trying to make it a great shield for individual combat by coming up with truly hairbrained ideas about hoplites standing in contrived postures seen on vases with shoulders perpendicular to hips that are a stylized feature of not only greek art, but egyptian and near eastern as well. One author, might have been Van Wees, went so far as to describe the hoplite as standing like a fencer- perhaps forgetting that a fencer led with his weapon hand not his off hand. Stabbing over your own head is none to powerful and moving the body, as one must, into a more natural 3/4 stance to strike negates all the conjectured benefits of the "fencing" stance.

[Sean Manning]

I think it is silly to say that the aspis was unsuitable for individual combat, for surely it was used in this way often once one formation gave way- when the teachings of hoplomachoi became useful. Better to consider it a compromise between value within a phalanx and single use. Just as stupid is trying to make it a great shield for individual combat by coming up with truly hairbrained ideas about hoplites standing in contrived postures seen on vases with shoulders perpendicular to hips that are a stylized feature of not only greek art, but egyptian and near eastern as well. One author, might have been Van Wees, went so far as to describe the hoplite as standing like a fencer- perhaps forgetting that a fencer led with his weapon hand not his off hand. Stabbing over your own head is none to powerful and moving the body, as one must, into a more natural 3/4 stance to strike negates all the conjectured benefits of the "fencing" stance.

It was van Wees (page 169 of Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities which I'm reading for the first time). He cites a famous bronze statue of a hoplite armed with Boeoetian shield, Corinthian helmet, and bronze cuirass (although that hoplite is apparently in a duelling stance- Hand and Wagner's High Ward with the lower shield rim pointing down and away from the body). Edit: He does indeed suggest a stance sideways on to the enemy tilted just enough to strike with the rear hand, not a 3/4 stance like I thought. That's strange.

Its a very interesting book and well argued, but many of his ideas about tactics don't seem plausible. Its hard to envision the Greeks winning at Plataea if they were still fighting without regular files (p. 183). (Especially since the Persians had beaten Egyptian hoplites who fought similarly to Xenophon's or Thucydides' Greeks). On the other hand, the sources he cites from Herodotus are hard for the usual theory to explain. He does a good job of describing the difference between the idealized hoplite warfare described by VDH and the messier reality suggested by our sources on early hoplite warfare.

[PMBardunias]

He does indeed suggest a stance sideways on to the enemy tilted just enough to strike with the rear hand, not a 3/4 stance like I thought. That's strange.

From the same period we have statues showing the odd- fencer-like stance and those showing a more natural stance. For what my opinion is worth, if we know that the odd stance is commonly seen for non-hoplite depictions on bas reliefs from Egypt and Assyria (such images are easy to find) then artistic style would seem the most logical explanation for the pose. To me, the other depictions, that look like what you would expect for a fighting stance, have far less reason to be anything but accurate.

Send me an email and I'll send you a copy of a scathing review that Wheeler did of one of Van Wees books. He says it better than I could.

[nikolaos]

Sorry to have been away for a while, and let my part of the conversation lapse. Getting back on topic to the existence of the Boeotian shield in specific, I'll lead off with Paul MS's last statement on the topic:

Paul MS wrote:
>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'm going to break down my response into comments on specific criticisms of the Boeotian, then take a new tack on supporting it.

1. Artists depictions of the carriage of the Boeotian are inconsistent, implying that they were "making them up".

This argument is only strong if depictions of the aspis are uniformly accurate, which is far from the truth. A quick survey of the Beazely shows all sorts of innacurate depictions the aspis, from no porpax at all, porpaxes mounted in odd locations (half-way down the forearm), and so forth.

2. A corrolary to the first argument is the inconsistent shape of the boeotian, from oblong to round in various depictions, argues that its appearance is not based on fact.

A survey of the Beazely depictions of boeotian shields by date shows the the depiction of the shape of the boeotian is very consistent until 500 BCE. It appears that only in pottery of the period of 500-450 BCE that the Boeotian "rounds out". A number of different conclusions can be drawn from this for this late period, but prior to 500BCE consistent representation would seem to negate this argument.

3. None have been found in digs.

In the abscence of artifacts, we can either assume depicted objects did or did not exist. Two arguments weigh strongly against the position of their not existing. First is that depictions do tend to be representative of surviving artifacts, and second the sample set of surviving shields is not statistically significant.

Now, a different tack.

First, a chronology of Boeotian depictions versus all depictions of warriors from the Beazely archive:

625-575: 1 of 2
600-550: 15 of 41
575-525: 160 of 442
550-500: 518 of 1204
525-475: 247 of 1209
500-450: 23 of 548

So first and foremost, there is a strong representative sample of the shield in vase art. Based on that, and rather than attacking the point directly I'm going to look at a couple of corrolaries.

First is the chariot. Although the chariot is no longer an active battlefield participant in the late archaic period, it is depicted frequently in the vase art in the range above (over 4000 examples). When reviewing those depictions, we see that the chariot is depicted in both "heroic" scenes of combat, and "modern" scenes of chariot racing and processions. Although there are no surviving greek chariots from the period, there isn't any doubt that they existed and were used.

This being the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the as the Boeotian shield is depicted in scenes that can be identified as heroic and more generic combat depictions, it also depicted.

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

I have to run, but in closing, its worth noting that Occam's Razor applies well to this situation. The theory that the Boeotian existed requires only a single assumption; namely that artists were depicting a real object. To argue that it didn't requires far more complex assumptions which don't make the cut.

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

When reviewing those depictions, we see that the chariot is depicted in both "heroic" scenes of combat, and "modern" scenes of chariot racing and processions. Although there are no surviving greek chariots from the period, there isn't any doubt that they existed and were used. This being the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the as the Boeotian shield is depicted in scenes that can be identified as heroic and more generic combat depictions, it also depicted.

Do you believe that chariots were used on the battlefield on 500? Obviously the depiction of chariots on battlefields is due to the fact that there is a remembered history of a time when chariots were real on battlefields. Chariots also have an special meaning because they are tied to heroes who rode them. Boeotian shields also were not seen on battlefields (in my opinion) but were just as "real" to them as chariots on battlefields. They knew the form existed, probably had extant examples and surely had lots of images and artwork to show the form. The shape was associated with heroes and with the double-axe which was an even older symbol.

What they did not know was how the shield was held- I would argue that this is because they were held completely differently than an aspis, by a central grip- so their depictions vary. Some may have even been made and used rarely on a battlefied. Archaic elements are commonly seen in art and in armor. I don't believe they are a direct line of descent, used throughout the centuries.

[Paullus Scipio]

Nikolaos/Cole wrote:

In the abscence of artifacts, we can either assume depicted objects did or did not exist. Two arguments weigh strongly against the position of their not existing. First is that depictions do tend to be representative of surviving artifacts, and second the sample set of surviving shields is not statistically significant.

...as has been pointed out, it is likely that archaic 'Boeotian' shields hung as dedications in temples from hundreds of years before ( or maybe not if their materials were purely organic - wood frame and oxhide face - but there are precedents for organic materials surviving hundreds of years....). Therefore, 'surviving artifacts' need not be contemporary, or in current use. An old partially decomposed shield hanging in a temple, and attributed to a mythic hero, is exactly what one might expect to be used as a model by an artist ( remembering that to a Greek, the mythic Hero and his Ancestors were one and the same....if anyone doubted, say, Theseus' existence, why there was his shield, hanging in the temple....)

A survey of the Beazely depictions of boeotian shields by date shows the the depiction of the shape of the boeotian is very consistent until 500 BCE. It appears that only in pottery of the period of 500-450 BCE that the Boeotian "rounds out". A number of different conclusions can be drawn from this for this late period, but prior to 500BCE consistent representation would seem to negate this argument.
First, a chronology of Boeotian depictions versus all depictions of warriors from the Beazely archive:

625-575: 1 of 2
600-550: 15 of 41
575-525: 160 of 442
550-500: 518 of 1204
525-475: 247 of 1209
500-450: 23 of 548

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 ?

Even allowing statistical significance,worse still for your argument, raw statistics alone does not tell a story - you have overlooked other significant factors.
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.....and amazonarchy scenes give way to depictions of 'Greeks v Persians'. ( see e.g. works by the Triptolemos painter c. 480's). With the decline in archaic Heroes as subjects, there is a natural decline in the depiction of Boeotian shields.This is not new, it was noted by Boardman and others such as Beazley long ago. Thus your statistics merely record the decline of the fashion for exclusively mythological scenes, and a rise in Historical scenes. Indeed as Boardman pointed out; "the vase painters were as quick to put Persians fighting greeks on their vases as Aeschylus was to put Persians on the stage after the Persian Wars.The dead of Marathon were treated as Heroes and near contemporaries or recent events had to have a Heroic status before Greeks would admit them to their art, at least at this date."

Again, as I have pointed out elsewhere, our evidence in such matters is always going to be scanty, especially if taken in isolation. But where a holistic approach shows various scanty evidence to be consistent, we ignore that fact at our peril.
Here, neither the archaeology, nor the iconography, provide any evidence for the existence of the Boeotian shield c. 500 BC. Taken together, the weight of evidence is clear........