Macedonian infantry shields

[Duncan Head]

OK, finally one of several pints that I want to discuss here – the size of the Macedonian shield.

There has been some academic quibbling in the past about exactly what the phrase "Macedonian shield" means: I use it to mean a round, rimless, concave, bronze-faced shield, regardless of whether it has the characteristic decoration or not. Whether or not this was the only shield used with the pike phalanx, I think it was clearly the main one. (And yes, I am aware that some shields used by non-Macedonians might fit the bill as well...)

Surviving examples and "apparently life-sized" representations seem to vary from about 65cm to about 80 cm, assuming that the "Pharnakes of Pontos" shield in the Getty -also    here - is in fact a "Macedonian" shield: it certainly looks like one, but it is the largest example, and Melikian-Chirvani - argued that it was a type of Iranian cavalry shield.

One thing that this seems to mean is that when Asklepiodotos or Ailian say "The best shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter, and not too hollow" (Ask. V.1), then – since the palm is about 8cm, and so "eight palms" about 64 cm - the tacticians are citing the smaller end of the range of shield sizes. This sits a little oddly with their view (Ask. I.2) that the sarissa-armed hoplitai use "shields of the largest size", since the shields they recommend a few paragraphs later are not really "the largest" at all. It's not entirely clear what the thought processes are here, and it's possible that one or other paragraph has been over-simplified since the original text of Poseidonios (or Polybios, or whoever actually wrote the first manual in the tradition). The range of sizes does also mean, though, that when people speak of Macedonian shields "two feet" or "60 cm" in diameter, that is slightly exaggerating how small they were – even the smallest is a bit larger than that, and some were noticeably bigger.

Sekunda, in both the Osprey "Macedonian Armies after Alexander" and his academic "The Antigonid Army", discusses recent finds of Antigonid shields from Greece and FYROMacedonia. Diameters of the six shields he cites are 74, 74, 73.6, 72, 66 and 66 cm. This he sees as two distinct groups , the larger of 74 cm which he suggests is carried by the ordinary phalanx, the other of 66 cm carried by the Antigonid "peltasts".

(I am not completely sure where he gets all the diameters from. For the three FYROM shields he cites two articles by Pierre Juhel from 2007 and 2011, but I've read them both and they don't give diameters: at the point those articles were written, the shields are still fragmentary. Pers. comm.? Hammond's 1996 article (thanks Nick) – does cite 66cm for one of the Greece shields, though.)

As Richard has said, this isn't a large sample to be basing a conclusion on, but there do seem to be two groups there – with the 72 cm shield as maybe a bit of an intermediate anomaly. There is also some supporting artistic evidence, in that the stele of Zoilos from Marvinci does show a smaller shield than the stele of Nikolaos son of Hadymos or the Lyson-Kallikles tomb. In addition we have the Pergamon shield-facing, reckoned at 66cm by Peltz, which isn't Antigonid but does neatly fit the same smaller size. So provisionally I am prepared to accept Sekunda's suggestion that the Antigonids did make shields to two distinct patterns, slightly different in size, in which case it does seem more than likely that the smaller group belonged to the peltasts – and also corresponds to the size of Asklepiodotos' and Ailian's "eight-palm" phalanx shields, although they explicitly allocate this type of shield to the hoplitai and not to their "peltasts".

Another bit of supporting evidence, not for those particular sizes but for uniform shield sizes within a given army, is that we seem to have two life-sized representations of Ptolemaic shields. One is the stone model or former in the Allard Pierson museum, which is 70 cm in diameter according to the catalogue. The second is the relief of Macedonian arms in St Mark's in Venice, which may come from Egypt or may be a Roman copy of a Ptolemaic piece – again the shield measures 70cm. Discussed here and size cited here.

[Dangun]

Asklepiodotos or Ailian say "The best shield for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter, and not too hollow" (Ask. V.1)

Apologies if this is off topic.

But what do you think the significance of "not too hollow" is?
Is it something about the internal surface and how the shield is carried by the arm?
Or is it something about the external surface (because it would echo the internal surface) not being too rounded and the effect this might have on the properties of deflection?

[Jim Webster]

Not sure whether it's relevant but how exactly was the shield worn by the infantryman?

Would a man with long arms try and get a larger shield so his wrist wasn't exposed because the shield wasn't large enough to protect his whole arm?

Why should they make them in one size? It was probably no big deal to turn out half a dozen sizes, once you've got the jigs

Jim

[Duncan Head]

How exactly the shield was worn is something we've touched on already in this thread when discussing what the ochane was; it is not completely certain. If it doesn't have the rigid bronze porpax of the Argive shield, it is possible that the carrying system may have been more flexible and more easily used with differing arm lengths? Carrying systems are another point I want to talk about briefly later.

As for concavity, again uncertain. We know from art that at least some Macedonian shields seem to have been quite concavely curved, bowl-like: look at the line drawing of the Pergamon plaque or the coins of Eupolemos - http://edgarlowen.com/eupolemos-10343.jpg - for instance. It is therefore not too great a leap to suggest that some were more bowl-like or "hollow" than others. Markle's "Shield-Monument..." article even suggests there are two types of shield, one curved and one flattish - which may be going too far. Sekunda suggests that the smaller Macedonian shields he thinks are peltai may have been flatter, but I am not completely sure on what grounds.

I would guess that the more "hollow" shields might provide better individual protection, curving round the arm, but not lock so well with your neighbours' shields in pyknosis?

[Erpingham]

It is, I suppose, an outside possibility that Asklepiodotos is just contrasting the macedonian with the Argive aspis? 

As already been said, if there is a best shield, more than one is either in use or at least available.  If A isn't just talking about an Argive shield, then various round shields were available to the book's audience (presumably people who wanted to raise phalanxes).  This raises the question, for me, about how standardised equipment would be in kitting out a phalanx.  How often would there be a complete change to a new style (Ok lads, we've just received10 thousand peltai 8 palms wide, so please hand in all those 9 palm aspides at QM stores)?  Or would there be a mixture and gradual replacement?

[Duncan Head]

The interesting thing about all those Macedonian shields inscribed "King Demetrios" is that they imply first, central issue, which we could probably deduce already; but second, some sort of intention to keep equipment up to date - replace "King Demetrios" shields by "King Antigonos" or whoever. So you are probably replacing shields at least once per reign.

(Egypt of course had it easy, since you could rely on King Ptolemy being replaced by King Ptolemy.)

[RichT]

The St Mark's shield is interesting and I hadn't come across this before (or the "Alexander's tomb" story behind it). One problem is that it is very 'hollow' while the Allard Pierson shield is very flat (and what is the size - the surface of the face, or the chord of the curvature?). Given the difference I'm not sure whether these can represent the same type or size of shield.

I could agree too with Nick Sekunda except that I'm still not totally convinced a 6-8 cm difference is enough to constitute two distinct types. But broadly speaking, if the larger shields in the range belong to the main phalanx and the smaller shields in the range belong to peltasts, that fits what else we know. It is also curious that the shield examples that have survived fall in the range 66-74 (or 80) cm, yet the artistic depictions (eg the Pergamon plaque, Lyson and Kallikles tomb, Ayios Athanasios tomb, Aemillius Paullus monument) all show shields which - to my eyes at least - are similar in size to hoplite shields (in theory, about 90 cm). I think the general point from all this is that talk of the phalanx carrying small shields is overstated to say the least - even if most phalanx shields are around 74 cm this makes them broadly similar to hoplite shields in size - certainly not enough of a difference to be tactically or even particularly visually significant (judging by the artistic depictions).

On hollowness and carrying, I seem to recall in the Slingshot archives an article possibly by Phil Steele that raised this issue and made some interesting points - will have to dig that out when I can.

Central distribution - there are a couple of mass distributions we know about - Doson gave the Achaeans a set of 'chalkaspides' (which led to them being mistaken for Macedonians), and a Ptolemy gave somebody else (aaargh my memory - can't remember the reference either) a set of bronze 'peltast equipment' (meaning small size bronze shields?). Alexander issued silver shields too of course. I wonder whether phalangites who were stood down took their equipment with them, or if it was stored centrally and distributed when they mustered? I would expect them to take it home, but maybe not.

Edit - and thinking about this last question - I've never been sure about the context of the fines in the Amphipolis code for missing equipment (for the sarissa, an obol, for the aspis, two obols etc) - since on active service losing an aspis would seem like a big deal. But if these are fines for failing to show up at muster with the equipment that has been distributed to you, it makes sense.

[Duncan Head]

Even if we in general, or I in particular, are never convinced by the idea that the sarissa might have been carried with the Argive shield, this discussion will have been worthwhile because it's thrown up a number of interesting points, not least the nature of the ochanē that was used in carrying at least one type of pikeman's shield.

We've already seen Plutarch Kleomenes XI.2:

... raised a body of four thousand hoplitai, whom he taught to use a sarissa, held in both hands, instead of a doru, and to carry their aspides by an ochanē instead of by a porpax ...

Now ochanē is rendered "strap" in the usual Perrin translation, and is often taken to be a shoulder-strap or baldric. The feminine noun ochanē seems to be unique to this passage, but is regarded by the LSJ as the same as the neuter ochanon. The LSJ gives the following examples, some of which again we have already seen:

-  Herodotos II.141: the ochana of Assyrian, so presumably non-hoplite, shields (aspides) are eaten by mice, so he is thinking of something leather, or at least organic.
- Herodotos I.171: the Karians invent handles for their shields, ochana aspisi; because previously everyone had used a telamon, that is the shoulder-strap described by Homer. So here the ochanon is quite clearly not a shoulder-strap.
- One I don't think we've discussed before, Aineias the Tactician XXIX.12: conspirators within a city make their own shields, to which they attach handles, ochana, of leather or wood - ochana ... skytina kai xylina.

So an ochanon isn't a shoulder-baldric, but it is some sort of shield handle that can either be leather or wooden. It may be a word with a quite general application.

At this point, let me introduce the sketch in the attachment. This is Nick Sekunda's interpretation of the arrangement of shield-handles shown inside the pelte of the soldier in the House of Menander fresco at Pompeii, whom he thinks is an Antigonid peltast – see for instance here. There are three straps, of which the longest is barely visible in the picture. This would be the strap by which the pelte was hung on the march, and which the agema at Pydna were taking off their shoulders; the other two would be held in battle. Could this arrangement of straps be Plutarch's ochana?

The only other image we have, as far as I know, of the inside of a possible phalangite shield is one of the figures on the Aemilius Paullus monument, see for instance http://www.hannibalbarca.webspace.virginmedia.com/Graphics/Pydna-small3.jpg at the left. That's a larger shield than the Pompeii one, appears to be rimless in the style of the "Macedonian shield", but looks like it has a porpax and antilabē like an Argive shield. Yet Plutarch's Kleomenes assures us that the Spartan pikemen did not use a porpax on their shields. So do we assume this isn't a phalangite's shield, or that the method of holding phalangites' shields varied more than we might think?

[Patrick Waterson]

So an ochanon isn't a shoulder-baldric, but it is some sort of shield handle that can either be leather or wooden. It may be a word with a quite general application.

At this point, let me introduce the sketch in the attachment. This is Nick Sekunda's interpretation of the arrangement of shield-handles shown inside the pelte of the soldier in the House of Menander fresco at Pompeii, whom he thinks is an Antigonid peltast – see for instance here. There are three straps, of which the longest is barely visible in the picture. This would be the strap by which the pelte was hung on the march, and which the agema at Pydna were taking off their shoulders; the other two would be held in battle. Could this arrangement of straps be Plutarch's ochana?

You may be on to something there, Duncan.  An ochana does appear to be a grip of some sort, and for stability it would be better to have two grips rather than just one.  I use the term 'grip' rather loosely as with both hands on the sarissa neither would be available to grip anything else.

The only other image we have, as far as I know, of the inside of a possible phalangite shield is one of the figures on the Aemilius Paullus monument, see for instance http://www.hannibalbarca.webspace.virginmedia.com/Graphics/Pydna-small3.jpg at the left. That's a larger shield than the Pompeii one, appears to be rimless in the style of the "Macedonian shield", but looks like it has a porpax and antilabē like an Argive shield. Yet Plutarch's Kleomenes assures us that the Spartan pikemen did not use a porpax on their shields. So do we assume this isn't a phalangite's shield, or that the method of holding phalangites' shields varied more than we might think?

Perhaps even both: I think there was a difference between Peloponnesian and Macedonian phalangite systems, for a number of reasons.  Callisthenes, quoted by Polybius in Book XII, has Alexander change the depth of his phalanx from 32 to 16 and then to 8 while advancing on Issus (Polybius rubbishes this, I think because he totally misunderstands what Callisthenes is describing).  This looks like the system of closing up by files as per Aelian/Asclepiodotus in their tactical manuals.  They do however have a second system for closing up files, namely face right and close up, but I have never seen a Macedonian phalanx mentioned as using this system, so it may be Peloponnesian.  The fact that Cleomenes' pikemen change not their shield but rather their way of carrying it suggests they might indeed have attempted to carry their pikes with both hands while using an Argive-type shield, as Richard implies.  When Cleomenes' phalanx meets Antigonus' at Sellasia, the greater 'weight' of the Macedonian phalanx carries the day once Antigonus tells his troops to dense up in a double phalanx.  To me, these are clues that the Peloponnesians may have re-invented the phalanx to suit themselves rather than simply copying the Macedonian model.

Is the warrior with the shield on the Aemilius Paullus monument actually identified as Macedonian?

[RichT]

Yes it's my view that the notion of a strap or baldric can be abandoned - Plut Aem 19 doesn't mention one, and Plut Cleom rules it out in the case of the Spartans at least.

Could it be that the only real difference between ochane and porpax is material rather than general appearance/function? If an ochane is a leather shield grip then it will be more flexible than a rigid porpax, and allow enough flex and give to adjust the position of the arm. This would allow the bearer to extend his left hand beyond the shield to grip a sarissa, while still using a grip at the shield edge. This would mean that the AP Monument shield can still be a phalangite shield, since though it looks like a porpax/antilabe, if the grips are leather and flexible this could in fact be a depiction of an ochane (or the two parts of one possible ochane arrangement). Always assuming of course that the sculptor took the trouble to depict the details accurately and didn't just depict a generic shield interior.

I'm not completely sold on Nick's idea that the Menander fresco shows an Antigonid peltast, but it might, and the shield arrangement would fit, certainly. So the general idea is that ochane implies two (or more) leather handles on the inside of the shield that allow more flexible carrying options than the rigid porpax and rope antilabe. This allows the AP shield to be a phalangite shield and also explains the Spartan practice.

In my view (but I guess not in yours, Duncan!) it also explains those figures on the Sarcophagus who have their left hands free - they have pushed the ochane of their shields further up their arms and slid the edge grip (antilabe equivalent) above the wrist, something that could not be done with a porpax/antilabe. This is of course speculative, and I don't know what the effect of the rim would be.

I suspect holding arrangements for phalangites' shields did vary - the Macedonian phalanx existed for over 200 years, and like shield sizes, I imagine there was some experimentation. The southern Greeks in this period went through four sets of shields (Argive aspides, thureoi, peltai, Macedonian aspides), so I expect there were regional and chronological variations for those 'armed in the Macedonian style' too.

This discussion has clarified my views on many of these issues too - very useful.

Is the warrior with the shield on the Aemilius Paullus monument actually identified as Macedonian?

Only by the fact that the other round shield bearers have Macedonian patterns on their shields.

[Duncan Head]

Is the warrior with the shield on the Aemilius Paullus monument actually identified as Macedonian?

Usually. However:

- Anson in the "Ashthetairoi" article - http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1192.msg10573#msg10573 - identified his shield as a hoplite, not a Macedonian, shield;

- Taylor in "The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus' Pydna Monument: A Re-evaluation" (mentioned on this forum before; draft formerly on academia.edu, now taken down) wondered if he might be a Pergamene or some such Greek ally of Rome.

Nothing in ancient military history seems to be subject to universal agreement.

[RichT]

Nothing in any field is subject to universal agreement! (Which is a good thing, in my opinion).

I suspect a lot of those who want the AP shield to belong to a 'hoplite' (i.e. someone equipped like a Classical era hoplite), whether Macedonian, Pergamene or Greek, do so because they have already decided that a sarissa bearer must have a small shield (and/or a strap).

I still don't understand how anyone (like Anson in that article) thinks carrying a hoplite shield is a sign of having lighter equipment. If we extend back the characteristics of the later Macedonian army (ie heavy, large shielded phalanx and lighter, small shielded hypaspists/peltasts) to Alexander's army, many of the problems go away (I won't pretend there aren't still other problems though...)

[Duncan Head]

I still don't understand how anyone (like Anson in that article) thinks carrying a hoplite shield is a sign of having lighter equipment.

Because the spear you use with the hoplite shield is lighter than a sarissa, I think. Whether the difference is enough to make the hoplite lighter overall, I do not know; it may depend on your preferred model for sarissa construction (big spearhead and thick shaft, or small spearhead and tapering shaft) and/or whether you're assuming Peter Krentz's lighter poplar-wood aspis (from the Greek & Roman Armour Day talk).

[Patrick Waterson]

Overall weight has to be a consideration, and as the sarissa cannot really have its weight reduced (except by shortening from 24' to 21' as Polybius notes in XVIII.29), armour and shield need to be as light as possible.  If metal, and presumably heavier, armour becomes increasingly popular, shield size - and hence weight - becomes the only significant remaining variable.  Iphicrates' reforms, incidentally, seem to follow this general pattern.

At a rough guess a sarissa would be twice the weight of a doru, which means several pounds would have to be saved somewhere in the phalangite's equipment.  A smaller shield, which would mitigate pike handling challenges and make very tight frontages easier to achieve, would seem to be a logical step.

That said, Achaean phalangites wore metal armour, but do we know anything about their shields?

If hypaspists had used larger shields with pikes, one consequence would be that they would tend to be overburdened compared with standard phalangites unless they made do with lesser armour.  Yet the general impression is that hypaspists were handier than their phalangite compatriots, and their key role on the battlefield and in assaults on cities does not suggest they were under-protected.  Would they have carried pikes? They, or someone in the Macedonian heavy infantry inventory, seem to do a lot of javelin-throwing in Arrian.

[RichT]

I still don't understand how anyone (like Anson in that article) thinks carrying a hoplite shield is a sign of having lighter equipment.

Because the spear you use with the hoplite shield is lighter than a sarissa, I think. Whether the difference is enough to make the hoplite lighter overall, I do not know; it may depend on your preferred model for sarissa construction (big spearhead and thick shaft, or small spearhead and tapering shaft) and/or whether you're assuming Peter Krentz's lighter poplar-wood aspis (from the Greek & Roman Armour Day talk).

Well true enough, and Anson does say "Markle is correct that the term 'baruteron' (heavier) refers to offensive weaponry, that is to the spears" but needless to say, I don't think Markle is correct to say that at all - that would be contrary to usual usage, so far as I know.

Whatever spears and shields actually weighed (and I think there are too many variables for any sort of certainty), I think it's fair to say that a hoplite aspis is usually considered indicative of its bearer being heavily armed. It is the first thing to be thrown away when running away, peltasts had always had (presumably) smaller shields, and the point of Iphicrates' reform is to make the shield easier to use by lightening it. My assumption has always been that when Hyaspists and later Peltasts were performing their 'light' duties (climbing ladders, rough terrain etc) they would not have sarissas anyway. I know there's a lot of debate over dual arming and use of javelins etc, and precisely what they did use I don't know. The likely options seem to me to be small shield and smaller than a full size sarissa but still lengthy spear, as described in the tacticians and Iphicrates, or else small shield and javelins, like classical peltasts. If the former, this fits nicely with Sekunda's Menander painting. If the latter, it explains all the javelin throwing in Arrian. On the battlefield, Peltasts definitely had sarissai (see Pydna etc) and I assume Hypaspists did too (but there's zero evidence).

It's probably also true that a Macedonian shield of a given size weighs less than an Argive shield of the same size (because of the lack of rim if nothing else), which may be why Macedonian shields were preferred, and why, if Alexander's heavy infantry did start out with Argive shields (see Sarcophagus), they later replaced them with Macedonian shields of similar size (see coins,  Ayios Athanasios etc). 

That said, Achaean phalangites wore metal armour, but do we know anything about their shields?

The only Achaean phalangite shields I know about are the Macedonian ones given to them by Doson - what the rest carried is unknown (to me) - though the Corinthian 'shield bowls' might suggest more widespread adoption.