Just a quick one and apologies if done elsewhere.
The crescent shaped pelta shield (beloved of Thracians!)....what is the accepted/perceived wisdom for hand/arm grip and orientation?
I have read a few articles and looked at a few illustrations plus contemporary art and am not entirely clear in my own mind the "normal" grip and orientation during use. I was hoping for some guidance from the (much more) learned (than me)
eg some representations have the crescent shaped pelta as having an aspis type arrangement of holding the shield (ie arm rather than hand grip) whereas as others favour the hand grip. Also some representations have the crescent adjacent to the shoulder during use whereas others have it aligned with the length of the torso.
I am not suggesting that there wasnt a "mix and match" of all the above but wanted to ask those with better knowledge about their opinions
So far as I know, the only examples of the crescentic pelta in-use are those on ancient Greek pottery, so if you've checked a broad range of those illustrations, that probably makes you as "expert" on the subject as anyone, Dave!
Christopher Webber's Osprey Men-at-Arms 360, The Thracians: 700 BC - AD 46 (2001), p. 38 has the following: "The pelte was usually carried with an arm strap and a leather or cord handle at the rim, or slung on the back using a back strap. Although the arm strap is sometimes shown as indistinguishable from the bronze porpax of the hoplite shield, this could be a heroic artistic convention on the part of Greek vase painters. The single central grip would then have been more common.
None of these shields are shown in back view in this book, and the front views (Plates A - slung - C, D and F - in combat use) disguise more than they show, which suggests expert ignorance is available to complete your own uncertainties ;)
We have no archaeological confirmation for the structure of peltai, as far as I know - not surprising given the perishable materials. In art, most peltai are indeed shown with a central armband, sometimes elaborated like a hoplite's porpax, and a handle at the rim.
This is a good example. (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7BD07FF182-2F83-4198-A252-0E889C9C16BA%7D) (This is incidentally the illustration used on the cover of the Iphicrates, peltasts and Lechaeum book.)
EDIT: Oh drat, these CVA links time out.
Try this illustration (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/265x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9788375311679.jpg) instead.
Here's another. (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7B253FB0E8-A80A-48B0-9157-5FBC41A0FD93%7D)
Nicholas Sekunda has argued that the pelte of the "Iphikratean reforms" represents an adoption of the Persian shield that he thinks is called taka. In the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, he says (p.327, caption to fig.11.1) "Though roughly the same size as the hoplite shield, the taka was made of leather and other materials, had a different system of handles, and was distinguished by the crescent cut out of the upper edge of the shield as an aid to visibility. It was this Persian type of pelte which Iphicrates borrowed to equip his peltasts".
The illustration referred to is Louvre G 571 (http://www.lessingimages.com/w2/100304/10030465.jpg) which appears to have a single central handle. See also this Arimaspian in Persian dress (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7B482815D6-B97F-4443-A984-1D7E0953685E%7D). One problem with this theory is that the art is not consistent: Persian infantry with crescent shields on the Alexander Sarcophagus have the porpax-and-handgrip system. See two Persian figures here (https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2290/5718092405_ff911ffca8_z.jpg).
Quote from: Sharur on September 20, 2014, 02:20:46 PM
So far as I know, the only examples of the crescentic pelta in-use are those on ancient Greek pottery, so if you've checked a broad range of those illustrations, that probably makes you as "expert" on the subject as anyone, Dave!
good grief, I have never ever been called that before!!! ;D
Expert, explained to me by an American friend as 'A guy with a briefcase more than thirty miles from home' ;)
Jim
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 20, 2014, 07:41:24 PM
We have no archaeological confirmation for the structure of peltai, as far as I know - not surprising given the perishable materials. In art, most peltai are indeed shown with a central armband, sometimes elaborated like a hoplite's porpax, and a handle at the rim.
This is a good example. (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7BD07FF182-2F83-4198-A252-0E889C9C16BA%7D) (This is incidentally the illustration used on the cover of the Iphicrates, peltasts and Lechaeum book.)
Here's another. (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7B253FB0E8-A80A-48B0-9157-5FBC41A0FD93%7D)
Nicholas Sekunda has argued that the pelte of the "Iphikratean reforms" represents an adoption of the Persian shield that he thinks is called taka. In the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, he says (p.327, caption to fig.11.1) "Though roughly the same size as the hoplite shield, the taka was made of leather and other materials, had a different system of handles, and was distinguished by the crescent cut out of the upper edge of the shield as an aid to visibility. It was this Persian type of pelte which Iphicrates borrowed to equip his peltasts".
The illustration referred to is Louvre G 571 (http://www.lessingimages.com/w2/100304/10030465.jpg) which appears to have a single central handle. See also this Arimaspian in Persian dress (http://www.cvaonline.org/XDB/ASP/recordDetailsLarge.asp?newwindow=true&id=%7B482815D6-B97F-4443-A984-1D7E0953685E%7D). One problem with this theory is that the art is not consistent: Persian infantry with crescent shields on the Alexander Sarcophagus have the porpax-and-handgrip system. See two Persian figures here (https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2290/5718092405_ff911ffca8_z.jpg).
As ever Duncan, many thanks for your views on this, much appreciated.
You've proposed a reason to have the crescent at the top (for visibility purposes) which I guess is the most logical. If the grip is then porpax and handgrip arrangement, this could allow for locking shields in a close 'phalanx' type arrangement which would fit with the Iphicratean mode of use.
It would be logical to suggest (??) that a (central) handgrip arrangement would then favour a more mobile/psiloi type use
Could, therefore, the representations suggest a mix of handgrips depending on the type of use by different types of infantry?
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 20, 2014, 09:25:19 PM
Expert, explained to me by an American friend as 'A guy with a briefcase more than thirty miles from home' ;)
Jim
:) I shall henceforth use the epithet with pride (even if little deserved!)
Quote from: Holly on September 20, 2014, 09:35:01 PMYou've proposed a reason to have the crescent at the top (for visibility purposes) which I guess is the most logical. If the grip is then porpax and handgrip arrangement, this could allow for locking shields in a close 'phalanx' type arrangement which would fit with the Iphicratean mode of use.
It would be logical to suggest (??) that a (central) handgrip arrangement would then favour a more mobile/psiloi type use
Could, therefore, the representations suggest a mix of handgrips depending on the type of use by different types of infantry?
The trouble is that if you follow the Sekunda theory, with the single-grip Persian "
taka" being adopted by Iphikrates, that gives exactly the opposite arrangement - early peltast skirmishers using double-grip shields, then close-fighting troops using the single grip. Which doesn't make all that much sense to me.
And then there is this niggling worry I have that maybe all the "peltai" carried by Persians and Orientals in Greek art may just be a misunderstanding of the Persepolis "dipylon" shield - an unfamiliar oval shield with two round cutouts being "translated" into a familiar oval shield with one round cutout. But that may just be me being paranoid.
Certainly I struggle to see why a skirmisher would need a double grip shield!
Jim
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 20, 2014, 09:48:24 PM
Quote from: Holly on September 20, 2014, 09:35:01 PMYou've proposed a reason to have the crescent at the top (for visibility purposes) which I guess is the most logical. If the grip is then porpax and handgrip arrangement, this could allow for locking shields in a close 'phalanx' type arrangement which would fit with the Iphicratean mode of use.
It would be logical to suggest (??) that a (central) handgrip arrangement would then favour a more mobile/psiloi type use
Could, therefore, the representations suggest a mix of handgrips depending on the type of use by different types of infantry?
The trouble is that if you follow the Sekunda theory, with the single-grip Persian "taka" being adopted by Iphikrates, that gives exactly the opposite arrangement - early peltast skirmishers using double-grip shields, then close-fighting troops using the single grip. Which doesn't make all that much sense to me.
And then there is this niggling worry I have that maybe all the "peltai" carried by Persians and Orientals in Greek art may just be a misunderstanding of the Persepolis "dipylon" shield - an unfamiliar oval shield with two round cutouts being "translated" into a familiar oval shield with one round cutout. But that may just be me being paranoid.
I agree, the most sense to me would be for the single grip to be for skirmishers and the double grip for closer formed infantry. Re the niggly paranoid doubt, I am erring on the side of the pelte in case of point having the crescent shape. Thracians are depicted in greek art as having this type of shield. This 'feels' right rather than any of them having a dipylon type affair
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 20, 2014, 09:48:24 PM
And then there is this niggling worry I have that maybe all the "peltai" carried by Persians and Orientals in Greek art may just be a misunderstanding of the Persepolis "dipylon" shield - an unfamiliar oval shield with two round cutouts being "translated" into a familiar oval shield with one round cutout. But that may just be me being paranoid.
But the Greeks still used an archaic shield in art with two side cut outs - wouldn't they have used that to represent the Persian variety?
Two questions from me :
What was the purpose of the horns on a crescent shield? Did they have a practical function or where they just style?
Second, how does the crescent pelte relate to the later round form and does that help us with the evolution of the grip?
the 'horns' or rather the 'cutout' section of the pelte would suggest (as Duncan points out) an improvement in visibility over a round shield possibly. Also (and I am floating this as a suggestion...ie no basis in fact!) could the shape also aid with the use of throwing/thrusting a javelin?
As far as I can establish, the cut-out seems to have served the same purpose as the 'spy hole' in an Egyptian shield: to allow the owner to see what was going on while giving his face some protection. This in itself would suggest that the Thracian
pelta was intended mainly to deflect blows and missiles coming in from above, e.g. attacks by cavalrymen, although it would also have been useful in an infantry fight.
Iphicrates seems to have changed the weaponry of the hoplite, so his
pelta would be used like the Macedonian
aspis for body protection and hence not require such a cut-out, which is probably why it is referred to as a 'pelta symmetros', which implies it looked circular (or possibly oval), with no asymmetric cutout.
Quote from: Holly on September 21, 2014, 10:14:01 AM
Also (and I am floating this as a suggestion...ie no basis in fact!) could the shape also aid with the use of throwing/thrusting a javelin?
It might if you are trying to keep the shield up at face height and throw at the same time.
I thought iphikrates shields were oval, basically thureos.
That's how my figures were modelled.
Quote from: Holly on September 20, 2014, 10:08:41 PMRe the niggly paranoid doubt, I am erring on the side of the pelte in case of point having the crescent shape. Thracians are depicted in greek art as having this type of shield. This 'feels' right rather than any of them having a dipylon type affair
No, I'm not suggesting that the crescent pelte is wrong for Greeks and Thracians - that's why I referred to it as a "familiar" shield. Just that it may not have been what the Persians really carried.
Quote from: ErpinghamBut the Greeks still used an archaic shield in art with two side cut outs - wouldn't they have used that to represent the Persian variety?
Good point. Unless the "Boiotian" shield was too Greek and heroic to associate with foreigners?
Quote from: Mark GI thought iphikrates shields were oval, basically thureos.
That's a bit of a myth, originating in a translation issue. Diodoros describes Iphikrates' peltai as "symmetroi", which some translators render "oval". It is not at all clear that that's what the word actually means in this context. Sekunda, for instance, believes it means "of the same size" as the hoplite shield they replaced:
Quote from: Nicholas Sekunda, "The Chronology of the Iphicratean Peltat Reforms", in "Iphicrates, Peltasts and Lechaeum"The phrase peltas symmetrous has caused immense problems for the understanding of this passage. The word symmetrous should mean "of the same size", but, for example, in the Loeb Classical Library Series translation of Charles L Sherman it is translated as "convenient", Parke rendered the word as "symmetrical", and Anderson as "of proper proportions", both phrases essentially meaning nothing. It is obvious, however, from the later words of Diodorus, that these peltai gave sufficient cover to the body, that they are essentially the same size as the hoplite shields they replaced, but lighter, as they were handled with absolute ease.
Certainly the first meaning that LSJ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=summetros&la=greek#lexicon) gives is "commensurate with, of like measure or size with", but other meanings are listed as well.
Functional explanations for the pelta's shape seem rather laboured to me. A goatskin, cut lengthways, has a naturally crescent shape. Stitching each half-hide to a frame gives you two decent-sized shields from one animal. Round or oval shapes waste more material.
Cheers
Mick
good point Mick, taking this a little further, is there a parallel with some of the Pictish type shields which do, on face value, bear a resemblance?
Quote from: Mick Hession on September 21, 2014, 06:04:27 PM
Functional explanations for the pelta's shape seem rather laboured to me. A goatskin, cut lengthways, has a naturally crescent shape. Stitching each half-hide to a frame gives you two decent-sized shields from one animal. Round or oval shapes waste more material.
An interesting thought, assuming the Thracians suffered from a scarcity of goats. If not, the drawback is that one presumably then has to spend extra effort making a kinked frame for the shield - and still has to do a lot of trimming to get the hide shape to fit.
Just a thought, but if I were going to have nothing but goatskin between myself and incoming missiles, I would be very inclined to take a whole goatskin and fold it over on order to have double the thickness of hide for protection. Of course, if one made the fold along the centreline the natural crescent on each side would match up in the same place ...
A Thracian may well have a shortage of adult goats that he's willing to kill, perhaps (rather than keep alive for their milk, for example). I've never woven a basket but is a crescent-shaped curve of wickerwork that much harder to make than a round one?
You are of course correct that a double layer of hide would be stronger, but if you're a skirmisher, a shield's purpose does not have to be to absorb blows as it's more efficient to deflect them (the sort of things the Caledones did initially at Mons Graupius; the old Irish poem cycles call it the "shield-feat"). I suspect most Thracian warfare "at home" was the sort of low intensity skirmishing observed between Papuan tribes in modern times. Such warfare is not especially lethal as large, slow objects like javelins that are coming at you relatively infrequently can be seen and dodged. Of course, a bigger battle is a far more dangerous environment but that's not the problem that the pelta was originally designed to solve.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on September 21, 2014, 09:46:13 PM
I've never woven a basket but is a crescent-shaped curve of wickerwork that much harder to make than a round one?
It does mean the outside support cannot simply be bent into a circle, but has to 'change course' part-way or have another curved piece inserted. The shape would also make wickerworking a little more challenging once one got to the crescent part. Of course, once you have generations of people doing this sort of thing it becomes habitual second nature, and suggestions that one might shift to a simpler round pattern would be scorned.
One possible advantage of such construction for a wicker shield is that there are no very long, and hence weak, structural cross-members from one edge of the shield to the other on the elbow-to-hand axis; the resilience of a smaller shield is thus combined with the increased coverage of a larger shield. Whether this was a real advantage would depend on some serious materials analysis which is a bit beyond my ken. Howevert, see below for the resilience of Thracian shields.
Quote
I suspect most Thracian warfare "at home" was the sort of low intensity skirmishing observed between Papuan tribes in modern times. Such warfare is not especially lethal as large, slow objects like javelins that are coming at you relatively infrequently can be seen and dodged.
Xenophon's experience with Seuthes suggests there was a bit more to it than that. Although most of his actions were of the plunder-the-village variety, on one occasion the Thynians attacked the village Xenophon and his men were occupying.
"
All this happened during the day, but in the night that followed the Thynians issued from the mountain and made an attack. And the master of each separate house acted as guide to that house; for in the darkness it would have been difficult to find the houses in these villages in any other way; for each house was surrounded by a paling, made of great stakes, to keep in the cattle. [15] When they had reached the doors of a particular house, some would throw in javelins, others would lay on with their clubs, which they carried, so it was said, to knock off the heads of hostile spears, and still others would be setting the house on fire, meanwhile calling Xenophon by name and bidding him come out and be killed, or else, they said, he would be burned up then and there." - Xenophon,
Anabasis VII.4.14-15
Xenophon and his men armed themselves and counterattacked.
"
Then the Thracians took to flight, swinging their shields around behind them, as was their custom; and some of them who tried to jump over the palings were captured hanging in the air, with their shields caught in the stakes, while others missed the ways that led out and were killed; and the Greeks continued the pursuit till they were outside the village." - ibid. 18
We may note in passing the way the Thracians carried their shields when they wanted to move rapidly - and how this would provide protection against someone shooting at them while they retreated. Also, those shields and their straps were strong enough to support a well-built Thracian warrior dangling from the top of a fence paling, which suggests reasonably sturdy construction.
I honestly doubt that scarcity of goats would be a major limitation: while females might well be kept for milk, male goats would be kept to a necessary minimum for various reasons and would provide a regular supply of raw materials (and meals). The preponderance of goat casualties if the females were 'milkers' would of course be kids, which might be a bit on the small side for a one shield=half a goat construction ratio.
I am not suggesting that the price of goats had much to do with anything. It just strikes me as a more plausible origin for a crescent-shaped shield than some of the alternatives being suggested and doesn't preclude evolution into something more robust by Xenophon's day.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on September 22, 2014, 12:19:48 PM
I am not suggesting that the price of goats had much to do with anything. It just strikes me as a more plausible origin for a crescent-shaped shield than some of the alternatives being suggested and doesn't preclude evolution into something more robust by Xenophon's day.
We can certainly bear it in mind; all shield types had to start somewhere. :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 21, 2014, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: Nicholas Sekunda, "The Chronology of the Iphicratean Peltast Reforms", in "Iphicrates, Peltasts and Lechaeum"The phrase peltas symmetrous has caused immense problems for the understanding of this passage. The word symmetrous should mean "of the same size", but, for example, in the Loeb Classical Library Series translation of Charles L Sherman it is translated as "convenient", Parke rendered the word as "symmetrical", and Anderson as "of proper proportions", both phrases essentially meaning nothing. It is obvious, however, from the later words of Diodorus, that these peltai gave sufficient cover to the body, that they are essentially the same size as the hoplite shields they replaced, but lighter, as they were handled with absolute ease.
Certainly the first meaning that LSJ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=summetros&la=greek#lexicon) gives is "commensurate with, of like measure or size with", but other meanings are listed as well.
True. It is something of a puzzle whence Nick Sekunda gets his idea that 'it is obvious' from Diodorus'
"...
thus successfully achieving both objects, to furnish the body with adequate cover (stepein hikanos) and to enable the user of the pelta, on account of its lightness (kouphotēta), to be completely free in his movements" (XV.44.2)
and
"
After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation (eukhrēstia) secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" because of their aspis shield, then had their name changed to "peltasts" from the pelta they carried" (XV.44.3)
that the pelta was 'essentially the same size' as the shield it replaced.
(If it were, might they have needed a larger breed of goat? ;D)
One notes that Diodorus describes Iphicrates' pelta as providing
adequate/sufficient (hikanos) cover,
not the same degree of cover as a hoplite aspis.
He seems to be assuming that if the new shield didn't give the same degree of coverage as the old one, it wouldn't be "sufficient". I agree with Patrick that this is perhaps not entirely obvious.
As a Thracian re-enactor, if not a contact fighting one, might I suggest the crescent allowed the horns to hold an opponents shield on a temporary "lock" or even disarm him. In which case the two hold grip helps in applying the force and allows a twist. The two hold grip also places the pelta parallel to the forearm being more comfortable than a flat surface against the knuckles ( I can attest to this) and I suggest would be better able to take blows without resulting in broken knuckles (which fortunately I cannot attest to!).
Quote from: Alan_Rowell on May 15, 2017, 02:53:46 PM
As a Thracian re-enactor, if not a contact fighting one, might I suggest the crescent allowed the horns to hold an opponents shield on a temporary "lock" or even disarm him. In which case the two hold grip helps in applying the force and allows a twist. The two hold grip also places the pelta parallel to the forearm being more comfortable than a flat surface against the knuckles ( I can attest to this) and I suggest would be better able to take blows without resulting in broken knuckles (which fortunately I cannot attest to!).
the forearm and knuckles points I can understand.
But would the shield be solid enough to lock or disarm an enemies shield?
It would presumably need to be more than just goatskin on wicker.
Alan, have you any thoughts on what the shield would be made of? A re-enactor's thoughts and experience are always worth having.
[Edit - got Alan's name right this time!]
thanks for taking the time to post Alan. I was a reenactor in a former life although my 'arena' was Dark Ages