The Boiotian Shield

[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.