Crescent Pelta shield design and mode of use

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Sharur]

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 

[Duncan Head]

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. (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 instead.

Here's another.

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 which appears to have a single central handle. See also this Arimaspian in Persian dress. 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.

[Imperial Dave]

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!!! 

[Jim Webster]

Expert, explained to me by an American friend as 'A guy with a briefcase more than thirty miles from home' 

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

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. (This is incidentally the illustration used on the cover of the Iphicrates, peltasts and Lechaeum book.)

Here's another.

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 which appears to have a single central handle. See also this Arimaspian in Persian dress. 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.

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?

[Imperial Dave]

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!)

[Duncan Head]

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?

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.

[Jim Webster]

Certainly I struggle to see why a skirmisher would need a double grip shield!

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

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?

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[Mark G]

I thought iphikrates shields were oval, basically thureos.
That's how my figures were modelled.

[Duncan Head]

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

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.

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?

Good point. Unless the "Boiotian" shield was too Greek and heroic to associate with foreigners?

I 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:

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 gives is "commensurate with, of like measure or size with", but other meanings are listed as well.