Macedonian shield curvature

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Looking at this in more detail:

The four shields in the Pergamon plaque all have a trace of a peculiar double rim. In two cases the rim juts out beyond the bowl, in two cases it doesn't, but I put that down to imperfect draughtsmanship.



This double rim is clearly visible in the 3/4 views of the shield on the tetradrachma but can also be seen in at least one profile view of the coin:



Notice the Macedonian sunburst motif, which marks the shields as being Macedonian and not of unknown origin.

This deep shield also appears on coins of Alexander and Lysimachus, in a context that shows they are not enemies' trophies:



Hoplites shields are clearly recognisable on Greek coins (the first coin is from Pyrrhus but the stance and weaponry is hoplite):



So the deep shield does seem to be a thing, and a specifically Macedonian thing.

[RichT]

Sure. To quote myself from earlier in this thread:

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).

I don't know what you are arguing for now. Are there depictions of deeply curved Macedonian shields? Yes - Pergamon plaque, Aemilius Paulus monument. Do the victory coins of Seleucus I also depict such shields? Maybe, but there are reasons to be cautious. Are the victory coin shields identical to the Pergamon shields? Clearly not. Is it likely that some Macedonian shields were smallish and flattish, and others were bigger and curvier? Yes, that's my view. Were there precisely two types of Macedonian shield, one with 10cm of depth, one with 20cm of depth? No, I don't think so - the evidence for such a certain statement is lacking.

This deep shield also appears on coins of Alexander and Lysimachus, in a context that shows they are not enemies' trophies:

The context being that they are held by Athena (or a statue of Athena). Would Athena have been depicted holding a contemporary phalangite's shield? Maybe - at any rate, the shape of shields common at the time might have inspired the depiction on the coin (compare with the very flat profile of the Athena Promachos coins). Do these provide a detailed accurate depiction of a Macedonian phalangite's shield that defines the type? I don't think so.

You should read Markle, IIRC he uses coin evidence much as you do and also holds there were two shields (small and flat; big and domed). The idea is fine, and there's no need to force the evidence beyond breaking point.

[Justin Swanton]

I don't know what you are arguing for now.

Replying to Duncan.

Is it likely that some Macedonian shields were smallish and flattish, and others were bigger and curvier? Yes, that's my view.

And mine.

Were there precisely two types of Macedonian shield, one with 10cm of depth, one with 20cm of depth? No, I don't think so - the evidence for such a certain statement is lacking.

Fair enough.

The context being that they are held by Athena (or a statue of Athena). Would Athena have been depicted holding a contemporary phalangite's shield? Maybe - at any rate, the shape of shields common at the time might have inspired the depiction on the coin (compare with the very flat profile of the Athena Promachos coins). Do these provide a detailed accurate depiction of a Macedonian phalangite's shield that defines the type? I don't think so.

Mmmm. Defines a type.

You should read Markle, IIRC he uses coin evidence much as you do and also holds there were two shields (small and flat; big and domed). The idea is fine, and there's no need to force the evidence beyond breaking point.

Ta, I'll look him up.

Edit: senior moment. I did read Markle's A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types. The Veria monument shows the shallower type of shield that is pretty much a smaller hoplite aspis minus the rim.

[PMBardunias]

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.

The rim may be due more to construction method than a defining feature of use.  If you build the shield from planks, and more so if it is a flattened dome like a aspis, you need a robust rim to keep the whole thing from flattening and cracking when force it applied to the face or if the whole shield is subjected to torsion.  But if you build the shield up from lathes on alternating bias, the was a scutum is made, you change two factors.  First, you make the shield less likely to split at the rim because there is no wood grain or joint to fail.  Second, making a shield of planks probably involved steam bending planks, joining them- sometimes in the middle with a joint like a step joint, but usually edge to edge with large bronze bisques- then lathing the final product to shape.  It is easy to see why this is a simpler build when the shield is shallow.  A composite build shield is actually just as easy to build as a deep bowl.  All of that is a long winded way of saying that a shift in building technique from lathe built to composite built should result in deeper, rimless shields that may have served exactly the same function.

I do think there were two distinct types of shields shown for Macedonians. Below is a reconstruction by Markle of the Veria monument. I think he may be correct in assigning the smaller ones to pelta and the larger ones to aspides.  I just think that all of the large shields, regardless of rim or depth, are aspides.

[RichT]

It's worth pointing out that the Beroia/Veria monument shields aren't deeply curved - they are classical aspis shaped. Ditto the Dion shields. There could be at least five shield types used by Macedonians (including Hellenistic 'Macedonians'):

- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins

Assigning particular shields to particular groups is open to interpretation (and is IMHO a mug's game). As is deciding which are phalangites' shields and which aren't. As is deciding if these (especially 'rimmed domed') are really distinct types.

[Andreas Johansson]

Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)

[RichT]

Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)

Nope - if you mean actual surviving examples - though the sizes/shapes of fragmentary/squashed 'peltai' are not always certain. The ceremonial shield in 'Philip's Tomb' is of classical aspis type.

[Andreas Johansson]

Do we have archaeological evidence of any of those but the "pelta"? (Classical aspides don't count unless definitely Macedonian/Hellenistic.)

Nope - if you mean actual surviving examples - though the sizes/shapes of fragmentary/squashed 'peltai' are not always certain. The ceremonial shield in 'Philip's Tomb' is of classical aspis type.

I meant actual surviving examples, yes. Thanks

[PMBardunias]

It's worth pointing out that the Beroia/Veria monument shields aren't deeply curved - they are classical aspis shaped. Ditto the Dion shields. There could be at least five shield types used by Macedonians (including Hellenistic 'Macedonians'):

- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins

My two sense is that functionally there are two groups:

- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)

And

- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model

[RichT]

- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)

Flattish - at least in comparison with the decidedly not flat shields seen elsewhere.

Agios Athanasios:


Aemilius Paullus (the prone figure below the right hand horse):


Shield coins:


Of the Agios Athanasios shields the face on bronze (or white?) shield you can't tell the shape, but the blue and red shields look only gently curved to me. Incidentally they are of three different sizes (in the image above, blue = 122px, red = 116px, bronze = 98px. Their actual size depends on the size of the men carrying them - the five right hand figures are all a head shorter than three left hand (because they are pages or grooms?). Superimposing the shields on the left hand figures though the red and blue shields look roughly classical aspis sized, the bronze one noticeably smaller (perhaps eight palms). But whether much can be read into that I don't know - nor whether the men depicted are phalangites rather than peltasts or cavalry or something else entirely (the cloaks suggest Companions to me, I think Juhel suggests peltasts).

I suspect you are right though that functionally there are two classes of shields and tentatively I would assign peltai to peltasts (and their Hypaspist predecessors) and all the various styles of aspides to hoplites (phalangites, sarissophoroi). This would go against Asclepiodotus' "eight palms width" - but agree with his "shields of the largest size". It's a conundrum.

[Erpingham]

My two sense is that functionally there are two groups:

- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)

And

- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area.  If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)?  So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another?  Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version?  And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?

[RichT]

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area.  If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)?  So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another?  Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version?

I should point out that it's not clear we have two functional groups - surviving Mac shields (which are the only really hard and fast evidence to work from) range roughly 60 cm to 80 cm I believe, depending which examples you include. So whether there are two sizes (small, large), or a whole range of sizes from smaller to larger, is itself unclear. Artistic depictions also come in all sorts of sizes and are impossible to compare across depictions (sizes can only be guessed from comparison to bodies, and there's obviously no consistent scale beween examples). The various sub-groups are also just off the top of my head, not AFAIK followed by anyone else (but I think they are reasonable groups).

Different functions, and chronology - the usual assumption is that the two functions are: use by sarissa-carriers (small shields), and by non-sarissa-carriers (large shields), and this is inspired largely by Asclepiodotus' "eight palms width". I think this is the wrong way round, and that sarissa-carriers had the larger shields (Asclepiodotus' "shields of the largest size"). Functionally, many people think the important thing is that a small shield is necessary in order to hold the sarissa in two hands. I think that functionally, a lighter shield was used by those who needed to be more mobile/faster, ie peltasts.

Chronologically a pattern is hard to discern, not least because we are dealing with scattered data points.

Also in passing - I don't believe in the "form follows function principle", or at least, it's more a guideline than a principle. Form follows function, but it also follows fashion, tradition, inertia, national identity and a whole host of other things. I don't think Hellenistic shield makers had weapons procurement programmes in which functional specifications were created and competing designs tested against them - I think they made shields the way dad made them, or Alexander made them, or Macedonians had always made them, tweaked maybe to make them a bit better in the opinion of someone who happened to be passing (or was king). Discuss!

And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?

No! But shields with the Macedonian pattern, and large unbossed rimless shields generally, seem to be infantry shields (at least I don't know of any depiction of anyone on horseback using one).

[Erpingham]

Also in passing - I don't believe in the "form follows function principle", or at least, it's more a guideline than a principle. Form follows function, but it also follows fashion, tradition, inertia, national identity and a whole host of other things. I don't think Hellenistic shield makers had weapons procurement programmes in which functional specifications were created and competing designs tested against them - I think they made shields the way dad made them, or Alexander made them, or Macedonians had always made them, tweaked maybe to make them a bit better in the opinion of someone who happened to be passing (or was king). Discuss!

I would agree "form follows function" is a simplistic approach and is rarely ruthlessly applied because of other less design-led factors.  But the weapon type does have to be capable of the function required, so the old cliche reminds of that.  All forms in the functional group should be able to perform the function, whatever that is. 

Anyway, I look forward to more musings on shields and what troops may have done with them in this era.

[PMBardunias]

My two sense is that functionally there are two groups:

- 'classical aspis' (largish, rimmed, flattish) eg Beroia, Dion, Alexander Sarcophagus
- 'rimmed domed' (largish, rimmed, curved) eg Seleucus victory coins
- 'domed' (largish, rimless, curved) eg Pergamon plaque, shield coins, Aemilius Paullus monument
- 'flat' (largish, rimless, flattish) eg Agios Athanasios tomb (I am not sure which shields you have in mind here, most I see are not flat)

And

- 'pelta' (smallish, rimless, flattish) eg surviving examples, Allard Pierson model

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow but this isn't my area.  If we have two functional groups, should we have two functions (on the form follows function principle)?  So all the large shields are for one type of soldier, the small shields for another?  Or one functional type is replaced by another chronologically - so same function but one is an improved version?  And are we sure that none of these shields are of a third functional type e.g. cavalry shields?

The answer is yes, but the function is not always what we would imagine it is, and a one time function may end up being legacy.  I am with Snodgrass for example in thinking that the ubiquitous guilloche patter on aspis rims indicate that the first aspides were woven, for example.  Many "know" that the aspis was designed for heavy infantry fighting in ranks with shields overlapped. I I read one more time that the aspis handicapped men and forced them to fight that way... But the closest analog you will find are the Taming shields of the Philipine Moros who stood in masses, but are described as constantly moving forward and back throwing spears (note, not running around laterally).  So I think more than likely, the shape of the aspis, and the double grip initially had nothing to do with close-in fighting, but arose at a time, memorialized by the ankyle on the spears of this Chigi Olpe, when hoplites also line up and threw things at each other.  It also happens to be exactly the shape needed for the close in fighting that hoplites did.  So much so that they could not change the shape, and when they needed added protection from missiles they hung aprons off the bottom of round shields rather than just make the shields ovals.