Macedonian shield curvature

[Andreas Johansson]

Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:

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 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?

[PMBardunias]

Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:

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 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.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin wrote in the plastic armour thread:

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 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:

[RichT]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.  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.

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.

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').

[Duncan Head]

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.

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

Just for clarity, could someone explain how these domed, rimmed shields about 3 ft across differ from the classical aspis?

[Duncan Head]

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.

[RichT]

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.

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).

[Andreas Johansson]

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?