I found one of the facts in Duncan's Slingshot 319 article about Macedonian infantry particularly interesting. In the second paragraph, Duncan writes, "arms and armour were state property. This is evidenced by the appearance of king's names on Macedonian shields - "Of King Demetrios".
Full disclosure... I know nothing about this period, but I wondered why would you label a shield if all of the arms and armour were state property? After the battle the state would just collect everything.
A label differentiates. So is only some of the arms and armour property of the state? The label would more logically appear on the exception, so were only elite units supplied by the state? A non-state owner of the armour would certainly know its their own armour so you would hardly need to label every other piece?
But if the owner was dead... perhaps the label is to distinguish property post-battle among the debris?
Whatever the reason, it struck me as interestingly odd.
Quote from: Dangun on October 04, 2018, 05:32:38 AM
I found one of the facts in Duncan's Slingshot 319 article about Macedonian infantry particularly interesting. In the second paragraph, Duncan writes, "arms and armour were state property. This is evidenced by the appearance of king's names on Macedonian shields - "Of King Demetrios".
Full disclosure... I know nothing about this period, but I wondered why would you label a shield if all of the arms and armour were state property? After the battle the state would just collect everything.
for when you're living. At kit inspection it makes it harder for you to swap your sloppily maintained kit for somebody else's nicely looked after kit :-[
OK, let's clarify what I am talking about - because words like "label" might be misleading. The typical Macedonian shield has a bronze facing with decoration worked in relief. This is characteristically patterns of concentric circles, stars, crescents and so on but also often includes the "issuing" king's name written in a band around the centre.
Thus here (https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-greek-bronze-shield-hellenistic-period-circa-5747576-details.aspx)we have an example including "Basileōs Dēmētriou", "Of King Demetrios". And here (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbYyEXHV4fDWNhbNDmcemAPdv0YHBUtN4IVtyvVatxg_NowjCV), sorry I can't find a better picture, is the Allard Pierson's stone Egyptian model, or former, or whatever, with "Ptolemaiou", "Of Ptolemy".
I don't see this as differentiating state from private property, more as a declaration of allegiance.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 04, 2018, 09:11:27 AM
I don't see this as differentiating state from private property, more as a declaration of allegiance.
Interesting, given the Late Republican Roman habit during a civil war of writing on their shields the name of the general to whom they were currently giving allegiance.
It is an interesting question though as to what would happen at the start of a new king's reign - would the old shields have been gathered in and re-issued with the new king's name? Or would a given unit end up with a mixture of shields depending when they were issued? As the name is beaten into the bronze it can't be easily altered (for the Ptolemies of course this wouldn't matter).
Related question - I'm assuming that the conscripts wouldn't show up unarmed at the start of each campaign, get issued with their arms, and hand them back in again at the end of the year. Though I don't know for sure and AFAIK there's no evidence either way, I assume 'citizens' would be issued arms when they were first conscripted and would take the arms away with them to keep (though still not their property). The Amphipolis regulations give fines for not having the proper equipment, which seem to me to make more sense as fines for showing up at muster with missing equipment, rather than for showing up at the battle having lost equipment on the way there.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 04, 2018, 09:11:27 AM
I don't see this as differentiating state from private property, more as a declaration of allegiance.
OK, got it.
My mistake, I thought you were saying the opposite.
At the battle against the Cimbri Gaius Marius' collaborating consul's men had inscribed their general's name on their pila. These were used to assert that Marius' men had not been the ones doing the killing.
Roy
I thought that the "label" was used to mark state property much like the British broad arrow or the American "U.S." mark. Since the king was the state, it would make since to mark state property with his name. Allegiance was something I hadn't considered.