Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2019, 04:15:09 PM
At present I'm looking at the capacity of the bronze covering on the more concave version of the phalangite pelta to deflect a pikehead thrust at it when it is angled. In other words, why were those shields so concave? (20cm deep or more). My working theory: to supply angled surfaces to pike thrusts. But that's probably off-topic.
If so, one would expect that they became so concave only in the Successor era, when the principal enemy became other pike phalanges - in Philip's and Alexander's days, the opposition used lesser spears. Unfortunately, it's my understanding we simply don't have the archaeological evidence to tell whether they actually did get more concave under the Diadochoi.
But were they ever
that concave in the first place? The probably 2nd century "Macedonian" shield from Pergamon we discussed in this thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.msg22556#msg22556) had a diameter of about 66 cm and a reconstructed depth of about 11 cm. Other "Macedonian" shields, acc'd the article cited, were of similar size or smaller. Where does the 20 cm number come from?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 04, 2019, 09:19:42 PM
Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2019, 04:15:09 PM
At present I'm looking at the capacity of the bronze covering on the more concave version of the phalangite pelta to deflect a pikehead thrust at it when it is angled. In other words, why were those shields so concave? (20cm deep or more). My working theory: to supply angled surfaces to pike thrusts. But that's probably off-topic.
If so, one would expect that they became so concave only in the Successor era, when the principal enemy became other pike phalanges - in Philip's and Alexander's days, the opposition used lesser spears. Unfortunately, it's my understanding we simply don't have the archaeological evidence to tell whether they actually did get more concave under the Diadochoi.
But were they ever that concave in the first place? The probably 2nd century "Macedonian" shield from Pergamon we discussed in this thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.msg22556#msg22556) had a diameter of about 66 cm and a reconstructed depth of about 11 cm. Other "Macedonian" shields, acc'd the article cited, were of similar size or smaller. Where does the 20 cm number come from?
There is some experimentation on this. Kevin De Groote tested the angle of impact of bronze plate over wood backing. 'TWAS WHEN MY SHIELD TURNED TRAITOR'! ESTABLISHING
THE COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GREEK HOPLITE SHIELD, OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2) 197–212 2016. The results are shown below.
But the benefit of depth is not just the "sloped armor" effect resisting penetration. As important might be putting more distance between the shield face and your organs. The spear does not simply go through the shield and move freely. Drag on the shaft limits penetration distance. This is most important with arrors, where there is no opportunity for second effort, but it will influence initial penetration here as well.
The domed shape also transfers the force of blows away from the impact site.
But, it would seem odd if this was a defining feature that we would be told by Asclepiodotus: "Of the shields of the phalanx the best is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms across, not too hollow" So shallow-ish rather than dome shaped like those on the pergamum plaque.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 04, 2019, 09:19:42 PM
Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2019, 04:15:09 PM
At present I'm looking at the capacity of the bronze covering on the more concave version of the phalangite pelta to deflect a pikehead thrust at it when it is angled. In other words, why were those shields so concave? (20cm deep or more). My working theory: to supply angled surfaces to pike thrusts. But that's probably off-topic.
If so, one would expect that they became so concave only in the Successor era, when the principal enemy became other pike phalanges - in Philip's and Alexander's days, the opposition used lesser spears. Unfortunately, it's my understanding we simply don't have the archaeological evidence to tell whether they actually did get more concave under the Diadochoi.
But were they ever that concave in the first place? The probably 2nd century "Macedonian" shield from Pergamon we discussed in this thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.msg22556#msg22556) had a diameter of about 66 cm and a reconstructed depth of about 11 cm. Other "Macedonian" shields, acc'd the article cited, were of similar size or smaller. Where does the 20 cm number come from?
There are two kinds of shields, one with a fairly shallow bowl about 10-11cm deep and one with a very deep bowl 20+ cm in depth. One can see the latter on Seleucid tetradrachmas:
(https://i.imgur.com/sg7B2Uk.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vK2GkpJ.jpg)
Quote
There are two kinds of shields, one with a fairly shallow bowl about 10-11cm deep and one with a very deep bowl 20+ cm in depth.
The trouble with very certain statements like this is that they don't bear close examination. Better to say there were various kinds of shields, probably with various amounts of curvature - hence "of the shields of the phalanx the best is...", for all that so many people leap on this statement and use it to precisely define every shield carried by every Macedonian from Philip II to Perseus.
Surviving Macedonian shields are all smallish (c. 65 cm +/- 5 cm) and appear flat (but then they are all incomplete and/or squashed). Depictions in art are often larger and often highly curved (Pergamon plaque, Aemilius Paulus monument, in particular).
Surviving incomplete/squashed examples don't give good evidence for curvature. Artistic depictions pose problems of perspective and accurate representation.
Whose shields would be depicted nailed to a Seleucid trophy? Not their own, that's for sure.
From a practical perspective (and Paul might have a view on this) is deflecting the blow a good thing for a shield to do? I know for helmets it might be (and for tank armour), but in a phalanx, a sarissa point deflected off a shield is in danger of hitting something soft and fleshy behind. Might it be better to catch the point on the shield? Particualrly if you believe in (gngngng I can't believe I'm going to mention this) the pushing model of phalanx combat, in which case it wouldn't work if sarissas slid easily off shields.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 08:22:12 AM
Quote
There are two kinds of shields, one with a fairly shallow bowl about 10-11cm deep and one with a very deep bowl 20+ cm in depth.
The trouble with very certain statements like this is that they don't bear close examination. Better to say there were various kinds of shields, probably with various amounts of curvature - hence "of the shields of the phalanx the best is...", for all that so many people leap on this statement and use it to precisely define every shield carried by every Macedonian from Philip II to Perseus.
Do you have examples of the different kinds of shields assigned to Hellenistic pikemen?
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 08:22:12 AM
Whose shields would be depicted nailed to a Seleucid trophy? Not their own, that's for sure.
At least until the endemic civil wars of the 2nd century BC ... but even so, Ptolemaic would probably be favourite, perhaps as illustrated in the Palestrina mosaic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_army#/media/File:NileMosaicOfPalestrinaSoldiers.jpg). A possible alternative in the 2nd century BC would be Maccabean/Hasmonean, which might potentially bring some Seleucid equipment around full circle, but a self-respecting Seleucid monarch would probably stick to Ptolemaic by preference. Probably.
QuoteFrom a practical perspective (and Paul might have a view on this) is deflecting the blow a good thing for a shield to do? I know for helmets it might be (and for tank armour), but in a phalanx, a sarissa point deflected off a shield is in danger of hitting something soft and fleshy behind. Might it be better to catch the point on the shield? Particualrly if you believe in (gngngng I can't believe I'm going to mention this) the pushing model of phalanx combat, in which case it wouldn't work if sarissas slid easily off shields.
And if possible catch the point at an angle to get the best of both worlds. Maybe. One might suspect that Asclepiodotus' 'not too hollow' aims at the ideal compromise between deflection of a point coming in at a dangerous angle and retention of one which catches at a non-dangerous angle ('dangerous' here meaning 'likely to go through the shield').
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 05, 2019, 09:19:14 AM
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 08:22:12 AM
Whose shields would be depicted nailed to a Seleucid trophy? Not their own, that's for sure.
At least until the endemic civil wars of the 2nd century BC ... but even so, Ptolemaic would probably be favourite
The first coin, at least, is of Seleukos I - http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/seleucia/seleukos_I/i.html - famed for
not fighting against his old friend and patron Ptolemy.
If the shields on these coins represent any specific opponent (and it's a big if, they are probably generic) then Antigonos or Demetrios might be more likely.
In any case, is that a Macedonian shield at all? It's quite big, with a very prominent rim.
It might be an officer's shield Cannot remember the article, but I recall seeing that Macedonian officers carried sonething more like a hoplon and had bronze armour as opposed to smaller shields and lighter armour for the phalangites.
Roy
Yes I too think it's unlikely that the victory coins of Seleucus I (they are from Susa, and perhaps commemorate Ipsus, or control of the Upper Satrapies) depict any particular real shield (though they might).
More info here: https://www.academia.edu/30432700/
Hellenistic coin depictions of shields have to used with great caution - some eg the Athena Promachos coins are deliberately archaic.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 05, 2019, 07:19:01 AM
There are two kinds of shields, one with a fairly shallow bowl about 10-11cm deep and one with a very deep bowl 20+ cm in depth. One can see the latter on Seleucid tetradrachmas:
It's very easy to imagine artistic depictions, especially ones small enough to fit on coins, exaggerating or otherwise distorting the size and/or shape of shields, so it would be nice to have archaeological confirmation.
Also, even if the shields on the coins are perfectly accurate wrt to size and shape, there seems no indication they're specifically phalangites' shields.
The shields on the coins, like the rest of the armour, are quite carefully drawn and match in detail the shields on the Pergamon plaque (also carefully drawn). I'm not really happy with dismissing them as artistic exaggerations or generic shields belonging to unknown opponents.
(https://i.imgur.com/gQMsFYU.jpg)
Just for clarity, could someone explain how these domed, rimmed shields about 3 ft across differ from the classical aspis?
It seems to me that the shields on the Pergamon plaque do not "match in detail" those of the coins, because they do not have the broad, flat rim of the classical hoplite shield, whereas the shields on Seleukos' coins do.
Of the four Pergamon shields Justin shows in his magnified illustration, three clearly lack such a rim; there is a continuous smooth profile to the edge of the shield. The second from the left _may_ have it, his shield appears to have a different profile from the rest, but in a drawing that we cannot honestly call "careful" simply because we have no idea how closely it matches up with the lost original, I am inclined to let the majority testimony of the other three shields rule.
As Duncan says, we don't know if the coin shields are carefully drawn, and we do know (by looking at them) that they do not match in detail the Pergamon shields, which are also from 100+ years later, and depict a different army.
Nobody is dismissing coin depictions of shields; we are just being honest about the limitations of the evidence. We don't know whose shields they are, if anyone's, and we don't know if they are accurately depicted.
Quote
Just for clarity, could someone explain how these domed, rimmed shields about 3 ft across differ from the classical aspis?
They look more domed (if you mean the Seleucus I coin ones), while the classical aspis tends to have a flatter profile - though you don't have to look very hard at classical shield representations to find very strongly domed examples (whether because some were strongly domed - two types of shields? - or because some artists drew them that way).
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 05, 2019, 01:41:59 PM
Of the four Pergamon shields Justin shows in his magnified illustration, three clearly lack such a rim; there is a continuous smooth profile to the edge of the shield. The second from the left _may_ have it, his shield appears to have a different profile from the rest, but in a drawing that we cannot honestly call "careful" simply because we have no idea how closely it matches up with the lost original, I am inclined to let the majority testimony of the other three shields rule.
The second from the left also appears to be more deeply concave than the others. If the depiction is accurate, presumably he's simply using a different style of shield.
Are Justin's red dashed lines intended to compare specifically this shield with the one on the righthand coin?
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 05, 2019, 01:41:59 PM
It seems to me that the shields on the Pergamon plaque do not "match in detail" those of the coins, because they do not have the broad, flat rim of the classical hoplite shield, whereas the shields on Seleukos' coins do.
Of the four Pergamon shields Justin shows in his magnified illustration, three clearly lack such a rim; there is a continuous smooth profile to the edge of the shield. The second from the left _may_ have it, his shield appears to have a different profile from the rest, but in a drawing that we cannot honestly call "careful" simply because we have no idea how closely it matches up with the lost original, I am inclined to let the majority testimony of the other three shields rule.
Looking at this in more detail:
The four shields in the Pergamon plaque all have a trace of a peculiar double rim. In two cases the rim juts out beyond the bowl, in two cases it doesn't, but I put that down to imperfect draughtsmanship.
(https://i.imgur.com/4k2xZ9H.jpg)
This double rim is clearly visible in the 3/4 views of the shield on the tetradrachma but can also be seen in at least one profile view of the coin:
(https://i.imgur.com/0XkOPob.jpg)
Notice the Macedonian sunburst motif, which marks the shields as being Macedonian and not of unknown origin.
This deep shield also appears on coins of Alexander and Lysimachus, in a context that shows they are not enemies' trophies:
(https://i.imgur.com/ywCvzx0.jpg)
Hoplites shields are clearly recognisable on Greek coins (the first coin is from Pyrrhus but the stance and weaponry is hoplite):
(https://i.imgur.com/PAKKvoM.jpg)
So the deep shield does seem to be a thing, and a specifically Macedonian thing.
Sure. To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
Quote
The trouble with very certain statements like this is that they don't bear close examination. Better to say there were various kinds of shields, probably with various amounts of curvature - hence "of the shields of the phalanx the best is...", for all that so many people leap on this statement and use it to precisely define every shield carried by every Macedonian from Philip II to Perseus.
Surviving Macedonian shields are all smallish (c. 65 cm +/- 5 cm) and appear flat (but then they are all incomplete and/or squashed). Depictions in art are often larger and often highly curved (Pergamon plaque, Aemilius Paulus monument, in particular).
I don't know what you are arguing for now. Are there depictions of deeply curved Macedonian shields? Yes - Pergamon plaque, Aemilius Paulus monument. Do the victory coins of Seleucus I also depict such shields? Maybe, but there are reasons to be cautious. Are the victory coin shields identical to the Pergamon shields? Clearly not. Is it likely that some Macedonian shields were smallish and flattish, and others were bigger and curvier? Yes, that's my view. Were there precisely two types of Macedonian shield, one with 10cm of depth, one with 20cm of depth? No, I don't think so - the evidence for such a certain statement is lacking.
Quote
This deep shield also appears on coins of Alexander and Lysimachus, in a context that shows they are not enemies' trophies:
The context being that they are held by Athena (or a statue of Athena). Would Athena have been depicted holding a contemporary phalangite's shield? Maybe - at any rate, the shape of shields common at the time might have inspired the depiction on the coin (compare with the very flat profile of the Athena Promachos coins). Do these provide a detailed accurate depiction of a Macedonian phalangite's shield that defines the type? I don't think so.
You should read Markle, IIRC he uses coin evidence much as you do and also holds there were two shields (small and flat; big and domed). The idea is fine, and there's no need to force the evidence beyond breaking point.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 07:31:37 PM
I don't know what you are arguing for now.
Replying to Duncan.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 07:31:37 PMIs it likely that some Macedonian shields were smallish and flattish, and others were bigger and curvier? Yes, that's my view.
And mine.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 07:31:37 PMWere there precisely two types of Macedonian shield, one with 10cm of depth, one with 20cm of depth? No, I don't think so - the evidence for such a certain statement is lacking.
Fair enough.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 07:31:37 PMThe context being that they are held by Athena (or a statue of Athena). Would Athena have been depicted holding a contemporary phalangite's shield? Maybe - at any rate, the shape of shields common at the time might have inspired the depiction on the coin (compare with the very flat profile of the Athena Promachos coins). Do these provide a detailed accurate depiction of a Macedonian phalangite's shield that defines the type? I don't think so.
Mmmm. Defines
a type.
Quote from: RichT on April 05, 2019, 07:31:37 PMYou should read Markle, IIRC he uses coin evidence much as you do and also holds there were two shields (small and flat; big and domed). The idea is fine, and there's no need to force the evidence beyond breaking point.
Ta, I'll look him up.
Edit: senior moment. I did read Markle's
A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types. The Veria monument shows the shallower type of shield that is pretty much a smaller hoplite aspis minus the rim.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 05, 2019, 01:41:59 PM
It seems to me that the shields on the Pergamon plaque do not "match in detail" those of the coins, because they do not have the broad, flat rim of the classical hoplite shield, whereas the shields on Seleukos' coins do.
Of the four Pergamon shields Justin shows in his magnified illustration, three clearly lack such a rim; there is a continuous smooth profile to the edge of the shield. The second from the left _may_ have it, his shield appears to have a different profile from the rest, but in a drawing that we cannot honestly call "careful" simply because we have no idea how closely it matches up with the lost original, I am inclined to let the majority testimony of the other three shields rule.
The rim may be due more to construction method than a defining feature of use. If you build the shield from planks, and more so if it is a flattened dome like a aspis, you need a robust rim to keep the whole thing from flattening and cracking when force it applied to the face or if the whole shield is subjected to torsion. But if you build the shield up from lathes on alternating bias, the was a scutum is made, you change two factors. First, you make the shield less likely to split at the rim because there is no wood grain or joint to fail. Second, making a shield of planks probably involved steam bending planks, joining them- sometimes in the middle with a joint like a step joint, but usually edge to edge with large bronze bisques- then lathing the final product to shape. It is easy to see why this is a simpler build when the shield is shallow. A composite build shield is actually just as easy to build as a deep bowl. All of that is a long winded way of saying that a shift in building technique from lathe built to composite built should result in deeper, rimless shields that may have served exactly the same function.
I do think there were two distinct types of shields shown for Macedonians. Below is a reconstruction by Markle of the Veria monument. I think he may be correct in assigning the smaller ones to pelta and the larger ones to aspides. I just think that all of the large shields, regardless of rim or depth, are aspides.
It's worth pointing out that the Beroia/Veria monument shields aren't deeply curved - they are classical aspis shaped. Ditto the Dion shields. There could be at least five shield types used by Macedonians (including Hellenistic 'Macedonians'):
- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
Assigning particular shields to particular groups is open to interpretation (and is IMHO a mug's game). As is deciding which are phalangites' shields and which aren't. As is deciding if these (especially 'rimmed domed') are really distinct types.
Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)
Quote
Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)
Nope - if you mean actual surviving examples - though the sizes/shapes of fragmentary/squashed 'peltai' are not always certain. The ceremonial shield in 'Philip's Tomb' is of classical aspis type.
Quote from: RichT on April 06, 2019, 12:11:48 PM
Quote
Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)
Nope - if you mean actual surviving examples - though the sizes/shapes of fragmentary/squashed 'peltai' are not always certain. The ceremonial shield in 'Philip's Tomb' is of classical aspis type.
I meant actual surviving examples, yes. Thanks :)
Quote from: RichT on April 06, 2019, 11:09:08 AM
It's worth pointing out that the Beroia/Veria monument shields aren't deeply curved - they are classical aspis shaped. Ditto the Dion shields. There could be at least five shield types used by Macedonians (including Hellenistic 'Macedonians'):
- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
My two sense is that functionally there are two groups:
- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb
(I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)And
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 07, 2019, 04:16:15 PM
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)
Flattish - at least in comparison with the decidedly not flat shields seen elsewhere.
Agios Athanasios:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Agios_Athanasios_1_fresco.jpg)
Aemilius Paullus (the prone figure below the right hand horse):
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5179a19ee4b06ea9dd760b54/t/52857f3ee4b0b26086d3031a/1384480576459/Pydna+relief+detail+2+compressed.jpg)
Shield coins:
(http://edgarlowen.com/eupolemos-10343.jpg)
Of the Agios Athanasios shields the face on bronze (or white?) shield you can't tell the shape, but the blue and red shields look only gently curved to me. Incidentally they are of three different sizes (in the image above, blue = 122px, red = 116px, bronze = 98px. Their actual size depends on the size of the men carrying them - the five right hand figures are all a head shorter than three left hand (because they are pages or grooms?). Superimposing the shields on the left hand figures though the red and blue shields look roughly classical aspis sized, the bronze one noticeably smaller (perhaps eight palms). But whether much can be read into that I don't know - nor whether the men depicted are phalangites rather than peltasts or cavalry or something else entirely (the cloaks suggest Companions to me, I think Juhel suggests peltasts).
I suspect you are right though that functionally there are two classes of shields and tentatively I would assign peltai to peltasts (and their Hypaspist predecessors) and all the various styles of aspides to hoplites (phalangites, sarissophoroi). This would go against Asclepiodotus' "eight palms width" - but agree with his "shields of the largest size". It's a conundrum.
QuoteMy two sense is that functionally there are two groups:
- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)
And
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area. If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)? So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another? Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version? And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?
Quote
Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area. If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)? So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another? Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version?
I should point out that it's not clear we have two functional groups - surviving Mac shields (which are the only really hard and fast evidence to work from) range roughly 60 cm to 80 cm I believe, depending which examples you include. So whether there are two sizes (small, large), or a whole range of sizes from smaller to larger, is itself unclear. Artistic depictions also come in all sorts of sizes and are impossible to compare across depictions (sizes can only be guessed from comparison to bodies, and there's obviously no consistent scale beween examples). The various sub-groups are also just off the top of my head, not AFAIK followed by anyone else (but I think they are reasonable groups).
Different functions, and chronology - the usual assumption is that the two functions are: use by sarissa-carriers (small shields), and by non-sarissa-carriers (large shields), and this is inspired largely by Asclepiodotus' "eight palms width". I think this is the wrong way round, and that sarissa-carriers had the larger shields (Asclepiodotus' "shields of the largest size"). Functionally, many people think the important thing is that a small shield is necessary in order to hold the sarissa in two hands. I think that functionally, a lighter shield was used by those who needed to be more mobile/faster, ie peltasts.
Chronologically a pattern is hard to discern, not least because we are dealing with scattered data points.
Also in passing - I don't believe in the "form follows function principle", or at least, it's more a guideline than a principle. Form follows function, but it also follows fashion, tradition, inertia, national identity and a whole host of other things. I don't think Hellenistic shield makers had weapons procurement programmes in which functional specifications were created and competing designs tested against them - I think they made shields the way dad made them, or Alexander made them, or Macedonians had always made them, tweaked maybe to make them a bit better in the opinion of someone who happened to be passing (or was king). Discuss!
Quote
And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?
No! But shields with the Macedonian pattern, and large unbossed rimless shields generally, seem to be infantry shields (at least I don't know of any depiction of anyone on horseback using one).
QuoteAlso in passing - I don't believe in the "form follows function principle", or at least, it's more a guideline than a principle. Form follows function, but it also follows fashion, tradition, inertia, national identity and a whole host of other things. I don't think Hellenistic shield makers had weapons procurement programmes in which functional specifications were created and competing designs tested against them - I think they made shields the way dad made them, or Alexander made them, or Macedonians had always made them, tweaked maybe to make them a bit better in the opinion of someone who happened to be passing (or was king). Discuss!
I would agree "form follows function" is a simplistic approach and is rarely ruthlessly applied because of other less design-led factors. But the weapon type does have to be capable of the function required, so the old cliche reminds of that. All forms in the functional group should be able to perform the function, whatever that is.
Anyway, I look forward to more musings on shields and what troops may have done with them in this era.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 08, 2019, 12:08:32 PM
QuoteMy two sense is that functionally there are two groups:
- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)
And
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area. If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)? So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another? Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version? And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?
The answer is yes, but the function is not always what we would imagine it is, and a one time function may end up being legacy. I am with Snodgrass for example in thinking that the ubiquitous guilloche patter on aspis rims indicate that the first aspides were woven, for example. Many "know" that the aspis was designed for heavy infantry fighting in ranks with shields overlapped. I I read one more time that the aspis handicapped men and forced them to fight that way... But the closest analog you will find are the Taming shields of the Philipine Moros who stood in masses, but are described as constantly moving forward and back throwing spears (note, not running around laterally). So I think more than likely, the shape of the aspis, and the double grip initially had nothing to do with close-in fighting, but arose at a time, memorialized by the ankyle on the spears of this Chigi Olpe, when hoplites also line up and threw things at each other. It also happens to be exactly the shape needed for the close in fighting that hoplites did. So much so that they could not change the shape, and when they needed added protection from missiles they hung aprons off the bottom of round shields rather than just make the shields ovals.