The stele of the Vultures phalanx

[Erpingham]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, looking at Jon Freitag's beautiful Sumerian figures has prompted me to examine the artwork that the figures are derived from.  Like everyone here, I'm familiar with the Stele of the Vultures but had never really looked hard at it.  I found myself wondering what it actually represented.



For the upper register, a group of shieldbearers, supported by several rows of spearmen (the number of rows being five or six depending on whether the front spearmen stand next to or behind the shieldbearer).

I was therefore interested to find this paper, which offers a similar reconstruction but with more detail

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276884127_HOW_MANY_SOLDIERS_ON_THE_STELE_OF_THE_VULTURES_A_HYPOTHETICAL_RECONSTRUCTION

While I find myself not entirely convinced in places (like his reconstruction of the formation in the second register), an interesting attempt at interpretation.

[gavindbm]

The interpretation of 11 men in a file fits very neatly with (in DBM, DBMM, and possibly other rules) a formation 3 elements deep (at 4 ranks per element).

[Duncan Head]

Interesting interpretation. The other one commonly seen is that the six bosses on the shield somehow represent six men in a file. Though I suppose in this version it could be thought to represent six files?

[RichT]

Interesting, though (engaging pedantic moan mode) I do wish writers would learn and make use of the proper meaning of the words 'rank' and 'file'. I had to read his (Nadali's) paragraph:

The combination of the two representations gives twice as much information: on the length of the phalanx (eleven rows, one behind the other), on the one hand, and the extension in depth of each row (six soldiers, the one next to the other), on the other.

etc etc several times to work out he means 11 ranks and 6 files (before seeing the diagram). To be fair English is prob not his first language.

I'm not especially convinced by his interpretation. Am I right in thinking the usual interpretation is a front rank of men with shields (avoiding 'shieldbearers', as he cautions), 11 files wide in this case, and six ranks of spearmen (which may be in addition to the shield carriers in the front, or include them)? The problem with the image would seem to be that the six spearmen are all the same distance from the front, as drawn, which does undermine the interpretation of them as ranks somewhat.

The bosses idea sounds a bit far fetched TBH - why can't they just be multiple bosses on large shields?

It is interesting how (or if) formed bodies of men are depicted in ancient art. I can't think of many examples - there's this, for the Greeks there are a number of depictions of (what are usually taken to be) formed ranks (eg Chigi vase) but nothing with (certainly) more than one rank. Romans have various testudo depictions but no other formed bodies that I can call to mind. Only with Medieval art do we seem to get depictions of large formed bodies (often seen from a slightly raised perspective). Comparison of examples (if there are examples) might help clarify what the Vulture sculptor was trying to depict.

[Erpingham]

Interesting, though (engaging pedantic moan mode) I do wish writers would learn and make use of the proper meaning of the words 'rank' and 'file'.

Reminds me of my recent adventures studying Tudor military treatises and the tendency to speak of the length and width of a unit, as if looking from the side, rather than our tendency to say width and depth, as if looking from the front.

I'm not especially convinced by his interpretation. Am I right in thinking the usual interpretation is a front rank of men with shields (avoiding 'shieldbearers', as he cautions), 11 files wide in this case, and six ranks of spearmen (which may be in addition to the shield carriers in the front, or include them)?

I'm inclined to say yes, simply because its how I've interpreted it above and I must have got it from somewhere.  Others may have a more informed answer. [/quote]

The problem with the image would seem to be that the six spearmen are all the same distance from the front, as drawn, which does undermine the interpretation of them as ranks somewhat.

Though the artist may have struggled with how to be sure the viewer recognised there were six ranks, so he felt he needed to show two hands grasping each spear.  Given the length of the spears (8-9ft?)  I can't see six ranks of spear heads can have protruded beyond the front, so again he may have had to stylise.  Even if we assume that the intention was to show widely spaced shieldmen with spearmen between, showing some thrusting at shoulder height and others at ankle height seems odd, unless we assume another form of stylisation.

The bosses idea sounds a bit far fetched TBH - why can't they just be multiple bosses on large shields?

I've also seen the idea that the "bosses" represent painted circles, and are some kind of unit identification.

[DBS]

It is interesting how (or if) formed bodies of men are depicted in ancient art. I can't think of many examples - there's this, for the Greeks there are a number of depictions of (what are usually taken to be) formed ranks (eg Chigi vase) but nothing with (certainly) more than one rank. Romans have various testudo depictions but no other formed bodies that I can call to mind.

Don't forget the Egyptians - they often show infantry close order four to six abreast, but the ranks often have quite large gaps between them, more a series of waves in a sense, than close order in depth. But that latter point may be for reasons of artistic composition than battlefield reality.

[Erpingham]

If looking at comparators, this image from the 4th century BCE mausoleum of Pericles at Limyra appears on the wiki Phalanx page



Nice image of formed hoplites in what appears to be a close order formation but I suspect the artist has created an impression of depth, rather than intending us to think there are 2/3 ranks.

The danger with Egyptian art is it looks realistic to our eyes, so we are at risk at seeing it as a literal representation, rather than a conventional depiction.  They did leave us with a 3D conventional representation that might be helpful in imaging what the 2D images were about.

[RichT]

Ooh that (the hoplites image) is a nice one that I'd forgotten about. I don't think it's clear that it depicts ranks rather than files and agree that the objective is to depict massing (depth and breadth) rather than precise details of how many ranks etc.

As for Egyptians, this:



And this:



would appear to be 3D and 2D depictions of the same thing. Note that the 2D version shows only a single file (or perhaps a single rank). The Egyptian visual style (in common with that of much of the ancient world) is going to struggle with depicting bodies of men because of the profile view.

[Howard Fielding]

Looks like a column of march, as used in other more modern eras. And, as in those eras, the men would just face left to deploy.

Why can't the Stela of Vultures just depict a typical unit of 24 spears, in 4 ranks of 6? 

Coincidentally, a typically Warhammer unit size(!) 

[Erpingham]

Why can't the Stela of Vultures just depict a typical unit of 24 spears, in 4 ranks of 6? 

If we take into account where the carving wraps round the edge



We have 11 heads, six shields and six layers of spears.  So a depth of six ranks is the minimum, if the shieldman and the lead spearman are in the same rank*, but a width of six files would be possible.  I suspect, though, that this would be too literal and the actual formation width may just be intended to be "wide" and six files is all that would fit.

* Readers with memory will note this is different to my count in the first post but I clearly miscounted then.  I should have said "six or seven".  But, again, this could be two literal a reading and the artist may just have meant numerous ranks.