Macedonian infantry shields

[RichT]

Yes indeed - the wagon incident does imply, to me, larger shields. The argument that they were hypaspists with hoplite shields seems circular - regular phalanx must have had small shields - the wagon people seem to have big shields - therefore they can't be regular phalanx. I would question the initial assumption.

The word 'aspis' can just be a generic word for 'shield' (and to make matters worse, a pelta is a type of aspis, as it is a type of shield) so I don't know that much can be inferred from the common use of 'aspis' for the shields of the phalanx. Even so, 'aspis' really is used very, very commonly - in Arrian, Polybius, the tacticians, inscriptions (eg Amphipolis code) - all talk about Macedonian aspides. So far as I know, peltai are mentioned three times in a Macedonian context - Polyaenus' account of Philip II's training regime, an 4th/3rd C fragmentary Athenian inscription, and Plutarch's account of Pydna. I've argued elsewhere that at Pydna it is the Peltasts who are referred to (which I freely admit seems a bit like special pleading similar to the wagon incident being hypaspists). But - to me at least - the frequency of Macedonian aspides and paucity of Macedonian peltai does tell us something.

On carrying aspis and two handed spear - it's a difficult question, I think, and there really isn't much ancient evidence. It seems like something a re-enactor could answer very easily (not whether it was done, but at least whether it is possible).

[Patrick Waterson]

One would think that the wagon incident does imply larger shields, but the insistence on the men clustering closely together also makes smaller ones quite possible, on the basis that if the men are forming a continuous carpet of humanity they can perhaps cover themselves even with a smaller type of shield, and one might even wonder about the shape implied by sugkleisai es akribes, which implies the shields were exactly fitted together.

I would seriously hesitate to propose square or other tessalating shield shapes for the phalanx, particularly as all shields found to date have to the best of my knowledge been round (see earlier in the thread) but suspect that smaller shields would have served well enough if the men could huddle together sufficiently closely.  (Alex would presumably have given them a dummy run through the procedure before risking life and limb.)

This would be another activity for re-enactors potentially to validate or otherwise, albeit perhaps leaving out the actual wagons.

[Andreas Johansson]

The promised summary:


The Pergamene shield, or rather bronze covering of one, the wooden core being lost, was 65-67 cm in diameter. It was squashed flat, wherefore a restauration was attempted in the 1930s, which caused some damage to it. The shape after restauration approximates, but does not equal the origianal, which can be seen in the irregularity of outline and the imperfectly right angles of the formed by diameters connecting the four fastening points along the perimeter, originally evenly spaced (or so Peltz takes for granted). Original diameter assumed to be a constant ~660 mm. The original height of the curve of the shield will have been about 110 mm. The covering is 0.35-0.5 mm thick and the weight is 1080 g (original weight by implication somewhat greater, to which one has to add the weight of the wooden core, a layer of papyrus between wood and bronze, and any leather carrying straps etc).

At the edge, the bronze sheet curves back inward; the inward-thrusting part is cut into a zigzag shape except for the abovementioned fastening points, which are rectangular and have two holes for nails to attach to the wooden core. Each quarter has a different number of "zigs" between the fastening points, 21, 22, 23, and 24 - Peltz declines to guess whether this has any significance or is just the result of lacking precision. In addition to the damage caused by the '30s restauration, there are four ancient holes in the bronze covering, possibly caused by spear, sword, and/or arrow strikes against it. Alternatively, some of them may result from the shield having been nailed to a pole as a trophy. At least some of the papyrus lining between bronze and wood had writing on it, the letters omega and tau being identified. The bronze, papyrus, and wood were attached by an animalic glue mixed with silicate filler.

There's a similar shield from Pontus, now in the J. Paul Getty Museum, which however has a blazon (a Macedonian star) driven into the bronze - any on the Pergamene shield was merely painted. Other shields of the same "Macedonian" type range in size from less than 40 cm to about 80 cm diameter.

The bronze in the Pergamene shield has less tin and more copper and other elements than is usual for hoplite shields. The simpler, compared to hoplite shields, fastening between bronze and wood had evidently shown itself sufficient in practice. Nothing can be said about the inner accoutrements of the shield, nor is anything known from other perserved Macedonian shields.

The shield was restored again ca 2000, with time apparently without further damage, and brought into a condition where it could be displayed in the Pergamonmuseum, but was still in magazine as of Peltz's writing.

[Erpingham]

Were any of the surviving shields found with any fittings e.g. handles, buckles, fixing nails?  They might help us understand how they were used better.

[Andreas Johansson]

Were any of the surviving shields found with any fittings e.g. handles, buckles, fixing nails?  They might help us understand how they were used better.

None of the Macedonian ones, as I understand Peltz.

[RichT]

The promised summary:
...

Thank you! Very much appreciated.

[Duncan Head]

I remember that when Alexander was campaigning in Thrace at the beginning of his reign, the so-called "free Thracians" were preparing to roll wagons down a slope to break up the phalanx
....
I remember a modern commentator, maybe JFC Fuller, suggesting that the soldiers that locked their shield may have be the hypaspists equipped with the hoplite shield.

Heckel's article here comes to that same conclusion; he also summarises some other scholars' different suggestions.

I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, been scurrying around trying to find some references. I'll try to contribute some more before too long.

[Chuck the Grey]

I finally located my copy of Fuller's work on Alexander's generalship. Fuller does not claim that the men hunkered under their shields were the hypaspists. Fuller seems to regard the hypaspists as being lighter armed and equipped in order to provide a tactical hinge between the faster moving cavalry and the slower phalanx proper.

I can sympathize with Duncan's scurrying around to find references. I have three different translations of Arrian's account of Alexander's campaign and when I went searching, I couldn't find any of them. Thanks Patrick for providing the reference in Arrian. Now I have to figure out how two of the copies mysteriously appeared on the proper bookshelf. They weren't there before when I looked before. Honestly.

Thanks for the link to the artlcle Duncan. I look forward to reading your comments when time permits.

[Patrick Waterson]

Heckel' reasoning seems to be based on a premise that the less nimble phalangites would find it easier, and the more nimble hypaspists harder, to avoid the wagons.

At least he sensibly has the troops in the path of the vehicles lie down.  When a vehicle trundles onto a shield, ground pressure per square inch from the wheels becomes ground pressure per square foot from the shields, i.e. a diminution in pressure to about 1/144 of what a loaded wagon would inflict.  It is no surprise that the wagons simply rolled or jumped over the prone Macedonians.

The smaller 2' phalangite shield might actually have stood this treatment better than the larger 3' Argive-type, which would be accepting correspondingly greater concentration stresses relative to its overall shape when taking the load of a wagon.

None of this really helps to decide which shields the hypaspists were carrying at this juncture.  Perhaps etymology and technique can assist.  By the time of Philip V, the hypaspist had been replaced by the peltast, suggesting a change of shield to one of lesser dimensions than hitherto.  These 'peltasts' were trained as close-formation fighters, as is evidenced by the following incident:

But when the Aetolian horse rallied and ventured to meet him at the ford of the Achelous, which is about twenty stades before you reach the town, believing that they would either stop his advance altogether, or inflict much damage on the Macedonians while crossing the river; the king, fully understanding their tactics, ordered his peltasts to enter the river first and to cross it in close order, keeping to their regular companies, and with shields interlocked [sunēspikotas]. His orders were obeyed: and as soon as the first company had effected the crossing, the Aetolian cavalry attacked it; but they could make no impression upon it, standing as it did in close order, and being joined in similar close order, shield to shield [sunaspisasan], by a second and a third company as they crossed. Therefore they wheeled off discomfited and retired to the city. - Polybius IV.64.5-7

The change in designation from hypaspist to peltast would seem to imply a change to a smaller shield.  There is an alternative explanation for the change in designation, which would be a change in role.  In Diodorus XVII.9.4, Peucestes, who is carrying the shield from Ilium, is a hypaspist and actually holds his shield over (huperēspise) Alexander.  If the hypaspists were indeed originally foot bodyguards whose theoretical task was to shield* the king, they would have needed a shield of suitable proportions for the task. 

*Aspizo means to protect, huperēspise is the 3rd person perfect indicative active form, but gives us a possible origin for the term 'hypaspist'.

This train of thought would point to the likelihood of a more substantial shield for hypaspists, at least in Alexander's time.

[Duncan Head]

There is an alternative explanation for the change in designation, which would be a change in role.  In Diodorus XVII.9.4, Peucestes, who is carrying the shield from Ilium, is a hypaspist and actually holds his shield over (huperēspise) Alexander.  If the hypaspists were indeed originally foot bodyguards whose theoretical task was to shield* the king, they would have needed a shield of suitable proportions for the task.

XVII.99.4.

Technically Peukestes was one of the somatophylakes, not a hypaspist. And according to Arrian VI.9.3, Peukestes was carrying the sacred aspis of Athene from the temple at Troy, so this may not have any bearing on ordinary hypaspist shields.

Interestingly in Diod. XVII.98.5 and 99.3, the shield that Alexander himself carries as he climbs into the city is a pelte.

[RichT]

Duncan - yes I tend to find my notes and references are in one place and my opportunity to spend time on this forum is in another (ahem). Any contribution will be welcome when you are able.

Ooo just seen your "Interestingly in Diod. XVII.98.5 and 99.3, the shield that Alexander himself carries as he climbs into the city is a pelte." Interesting indeed! I will now scurry off to look at that...

I should add - having now checked - that I'm wrong about there being only one inscriptional reference to peltai in a Macedonian context - Liampi lists four, the latest from early 2nd C. Nevertheless I think the general point stands I hope - 'aspis' is still more common.

The Heckel wagons article is interesting. He says "A.B. Bosworth, noting the small size of the phalangite's shield (Asclepiodotus, Tact. 5.1 says it was 8 palms or about two feet in diameter" - this always seems to me an enormous leap of faith - the phalangite's shield at the time Asclepiodotus was writing (late 2nd C?) might have been two feet in diameter - taking this as evidence of the size of shield of Alexander's phalanx is a bit of a stretch, IMHO - yet it is very common to do so, as if Macedonian armament must of necessity have remained completely unchanged for 200 years.

Also - "There is, of course, a direct correlation between the length of the offensive weapon carried by the infantryman and the size of his shield." This begs the question - I don't believe there's any necessity for such a correlation. Heckel, like others, sees the hypaspists as more lightly armed, mobile and flexible - yet gives them the quintessentially heavy shield of the hoplite. To my mind if the hypaspists are lighter armed, this above all should apply to their shields, since the shield was the single heaviest piece of equipment (and the one Iphicrates' reform, if real, aimed to replace for precisely that reason). That's my hunch, anyway - can't prove it of course.

Anthony - no, there are no surviving rmeains of the insides of Macedonian shields - no fixtures or fittings. The only direct evidence is the inside of one shield on the Aemillis Paullus monument which we've mentioned; and the Pergamene bronze plaque of phalangites in action http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/pergamon1913/0165, which is odd as it seems to show the sarissa passing to the left of the shield instead of the right. Maybe because it did, maybe because the artist depicted it poorly, maybe because the line drawing (the only version of this plaque that has survived) represents it badly - we can't tell.

[RichT]

Patrick:-

The change in designation from hypaspist to peltast would seem to imply a change to a smaller shield.

Perhaps, but it doesn't imply that to me. Macedonian unit names seem to have undergone a process of expansion - originally 'Companions' meant the personal companions of the king, but under Philip or Alexander the designation was extended to cover the whole of the Macedonian heavy cavalry. Similarly, at some point Philip or Alexander extended the title 'Foot Companions' to the whole of the heavy infantry (the hoplites). My guess is that originally the Foot Companions were the king's personal infantry guard. When the title was extended to cover the whole of the infantry, a new title was needed for the guard, and the title chosen was 'hypaspist' - this having previously been (and in fact continuing, under Alexander and later Macedonian kings, to be) the designation of some body of close attendants of the king. As such 'hypaspist', means not "bearer of an aspis" but "bearer of the king's shield", and as such it doesn't tell us anything about the type of shield they themselves carried.

I admit that this (I hope) neat argument is undermined by the Hypaspists becoming Argyraspides, which is a problem for my theory. But maybe this was due to a change of armament...

Diod xvii.98 - Alexander's pelta at the Mallian city - is interesting. I would guess that if Alexander needed to grab a shield off someone, the closest to hand might well have been that of a Hypaspist (or Argyraspid) - Alexander's guards, in attendance upon him. As such this might be evidence that the Hypaspists carried peltai - QED! But this is a leap of faith too - I'm not sure any firm conclusion can be drawn from this incident, either way.

[Andreas Johansson]

Also - "There is, of course, a direct correlation between the length of the offensive weapon carried by the infantryman and the size of his shield." This begs the question - I don't believe there's any necessity for such a correlation.

One can't avoiding thinking of Renaissance pikemen without any shield at all.

[Duncan Head]

As such 'hypaspist', means not "bearer of an aspis" but "bearer of the king's shield" ...

Did anyone read the article on hypaspists in the latest Ancient Warfare? The author suggests that there is one reference to hypaspists being called "the hypaspists of the Companions" (if I ever knew this I had forgotten it), and argues that the three battalions of the hypaspists had three different origins, IIRC something like:

- "the hypaspists of the Companions", presumably originally the Companion cavalry's shield-bearing squires;
- the Royal Hypaspists (which term Tarn always regarded as a mere synonym for "the hypaspists");
- and I think the third would have been the agema.

Not sure if that helps at all!
 

[Jim Webster]

Isn't it in Arrian where early on in Asia Minor the Companions dismount (on a hill?) with their shields?

Going from memory here