Early Ptolemaic soldier figurine

[Duncan Head]

Since we've been talking about Greek shields, what do we all make of the chap at https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=464981&partId=1 ?

He's from Egypt, early-ish Ptolemaic, wearing a pilos helmet and swathed in a cloak, with a round rimmed shield. At first I would have said that the shield is a straightforward hoplite's Argive aspis. The thing that gives me pause is the size. If we go by the size of his head and his helmet, then the shield looks to be very small for an Argive shield (but of course too broadly-rimmed for a typical pikeman's shield). However, while it is hard to judge because of his crouching posture, I wonder if the head is somewhat over-scale.

If this chap is a traditional hoplite with an Argive shield, then he provides support for the idea that Greek mercenaries in early Hellenistic armies were still equipped as hoplites, not re-armed as pikemen or as "Iphikratean peltasts". If not, then what is he?

[Swampster]

Isn't the shield pretty similar in size and design to those on some of the purported 'machimoi' figures (though I know there could be scale issues with those as well).

[Jim Webster]

The pose is right for a hoplite supporting the weight of his hoplon on his shoulder rather than on his arm. I'd go for him being a hoplite

[Erpingham]

In composition and modelling terms, I think it would have been difficult to have given him a larger shield.  I think he has great character though, wrapped in his cloak huddling over a watchfire, maybe.

[Duncan Head]

Isn't the shield pretty similar in size and design to those on some of the purported 'machimoi' figures (though I know there could be scale issues with those as well).

Not sure what figures you might mean. The Kom Madi swordsmen have shields that might be of a comparable size, but look to have a much narrower rim.

[Justin Swanton]

Comparing the shield size to the head, the shield is way too small to be any known type. Which suggests it is not in proportion. Given that the soldier is squatting, I imagine the sculptor deliberately made the shield smaller to fit the composition (otherwise the top of the shield would be above his head). It looks like an aspis though. I suspect that Successor armies initially used hoplite-equipped troops to give their phalanxes an outflanking capability. A hoplite unit can wheel on the battlefield; a phalangite unit with lowered pikes can't. I don't think it was an accident that the hypapists were always stationed on the right of the phalanx - that enabled them to outflank the enemy left wing as they did at Issus and Gaugamela. Later pike phalanxes seem to have given up on the idea.

[Erpingham]

If you look at the warrior/protector Bes figures, they often have small rimmed round shields.  But, looking at those with thureos or scutum, I think undersizing the shield is a conscious compositional decision and may be so in the squatting/seated soldier too.

[RichT]

I suppose I'd have a more general question. I don't know, or know if anyone knows, what the purpose of these terracotta figures was or who made them or who used them. But what do people think is the likelihood that they accurately depict specific pieces of contemporary military equipment, rather than just being 'toy soldiers'? The pilos helmet suggests some level of accuracy, but shape and size of shield? It's an interesting figure though. I'd say it represents a Greek soldier, type unknown, and probably unspecified and unimportant. Could be a phalangite as easily as anything else, or a non-thureophoros mercenary.

[RichT]

A hoplite unit can wheel on the battlefield; a phalangite unit with lowered pikes can't.

Permit me to disagree in passing with that statement... Or to disagree partially (why would they need or want to wheel with lowered pikes?)

[Justin Swanton]

A hoplite unit can wheel on the battlefield; a phalangite unit with lowered pikes can't.

Permit me to disagree in passing with that statement... Or to disagree partially (why would they need or want to wheel with lowered pikes?)

To outflank the enemy infantry as the Spartans did.

[Mick Hession]

I don't think it was an accident that the hypapists were always stationed on the right of the phalanx - that enabled them to outflank the enemy left wing as they did at Issus and Gaugamela.

Not my period so I'll step in _very_ gingerly here: has the matter of hypaspist armament been settled? I thought there's a school of thought that they were phalangites as well.

Also, who was outlanked by the hypaspists at Gaugamela? Been a while since I read the details but I thought the Companions did the heavy lifting.

Cheers
Mick

[Duncan Head]

I don't think it was an accident that the hypapists were always stationed on the right of the phalanx - that enabled them to outflank the enemy left wing as they did at Issus and Gaugamela.

Not my period so I'll step in _very_ gingerly here: has the matter of hypaspist armament been settled? I thought there's a school of thought that they were phalangites as well.

No, it hasn't been settled. But several recent writers have opted for the hypaspist-hoplite explanation; it seems to be in fashion again.

The only new evidence I know of is Pierre Juhel's argument that the regulation helmet of the Macedonian phalanx was the pilos; therefore, whoever the hoplite-shielded Thracian-helmeted figures on the Alexander Sarcophagus are, they are not accurate representations of ordinary phalangites. This must slightly increase the chances that they are representations of some other unit, namely the hypaspists. (While leaving entirely open the idea that they are not entirely accurate representations of anyone...)

[Duncan Head]

Permit me to disagree in passing with that statement... Or to disagree partially (why would they need or want to wheel with lowered pikes?)

To outflank the enemy infantry as the Spartans did.

Why would they need to lower their pikes for that?

[RichT]

Hypaspist armament is second only to the 0-word for being the cause of vast meandering unresolved debates. FWIW I think they were 'peltasts' in the Hellenistic sense, more or less Iphicratean peltasts.

Outflanking - Gaugamela is too vague to make much of. Issus, Arrian (Anab.2.11.1) says "Now the taxeis on the right wing... overlapping (hyperphalangesantes) the now broken Persian left". A case could be made for the taxeis in question being Hypaspists but I wouldn't make it - I think it means the rightmost taxeis of the main phalanx. At any rate, sarissa armed phalangites certainly could wheel and outflank - the tacticians provide the drills for it (step one - raise sarissas to the vertical...)

[Justin Swanton]

Hypaspist armament is second only to the 0-word for being the cause of vast meandering unresolved debates. FWIW I think they were 'peltasts' in the Hellenistic sense, more or less Iphicratean peltasts.

Outflanking - Gaugamela is too vague to make much of. Issus, Arrian (Anab.2.11.1) says "Now the taxeis on the right wing... overlapping (hyperphalangesantes) the now broken Persian left". A case could be made for the taxeis in question being Hypaspists but I wouldn't make it - I think it means the rightmost taxeis of the main phalanx. At any rate, sarissa armed phalangites certainly could wheel and outflank - the tacticians provide the drills for it (step one - raise sarissas to the vertical...)

The trouble is, raising pikes in the middle of a battle is IMHO a bad idea as it exposes the pikemen to nearby enemy units. The wheeling takes a certain amount of time, being done taxis by taxis, and the pikemen are helpless during the process if charged. Spear-armed hoplites on the other hand can instantly respond to an enemy attack. The tacticians gives examples of march columns forming lines which I think is what they had in mind when describing wheeling taxeis. There is no mention of any wheeling manoeuvre employed in the course of a battle.