pothos.org

Hi

I was wondering about the Shield bearer uniforms?

1. To my understanding they were both geared up in laminated linen cuirasses AND sculpted muscle cuirasses. Am I correct on this one?

2. And about the helmets; did they wear smooth tall sloping helmets with faux horse hair plumes and cheek guards which covered not only the great portions of the cheeks but the front of the face as well, leaving an opening for the eyes?

3. Because in the Alexander movie, in the Gaugamela scene, where a caption on the screen reads: "Macedonian Left", you can clearly see men wearing the aforementioned helmets with the massive face guards and the muscle cuirasses holding big shields. However, weren't they guarding the RIGHT flank?
To my recollection, I believe there were some phalangites wearing the said uniform as well??
In another segment of the Gaugamela battle scene, someone says, "Shields - break off!" And a battalion of shield bearers (I think) veers off, and some of them were wearing muscled cuirasses.

In the scene in India where his men march along in the forest, to Ptolemy's voiceover, there is also visible several men lugging great shields, with muscled cuirasses and helmets with the type of face guards that cover the mouth and nose as well.

What do you guys think?

Cheers!

The first thing to say is that one should NEVER look to Hollywood as an accurate guide to historical costume......

The second is that there is very little evidence at all for what Alexander's army looked like, though enough to get a reasonable idea. For example, it is still debated as to whether the "Hypaspists" were armed with pelta/smallish shield and sarissa/pike, or aspis/large rimmed shield and doru/single handed spear.

Next, what evidence we have suggests that Macedonian guard units only wore uniform clothing (red) from the reign of Philip V (221 -179 BC ) - see Plutarch - and the evidence from the Agios Athanasios frieze suggests that earlier Macedonian soldiers wore individual clothing, not uniforms.

A number of helmet types relate to Macedon at this time, and the 'Phrygian' type, with drawn forward peak, both with and without crests ( almost always horsehair) seems to have been popular among Infantry officers in the period. Some had the cheek-pieces formed into bearded masks, others did not. The rank and file, certainly of the phalanx, seem to have worn simpler 'konos' conical helmets similar to the Peloponnesian 'pilos' type.

Bronze muscled cuirasses did exist at the time of Philip and Alexander, but because of their undoubted expense were probably restricted to senior officers and the wealthiest.

The 'laminated linen cuirasses' almost certainly never existed. This was the late Peter Connolly's idea, put forward in the 1970's in his book "Greek Armies", but no evidence whatsoever has come forward to support his idea. What evidence we do have suggests that the Tube-and-yoke corselet (spolas) was of leather, sometimes re-inforced with bronze scales or small plates.

None of this equipment was particularly "uniform", and varied considerably between individual items, though it is highly probable that from Philip II's time onward, equipment such as shields, helmets pikes, spears etc were issued by the state/King. However, these were not made in factories, but by individual metal workers in small workshops.......

However, Curtius VII 1 xvii

Rex solvi utrumque iubet, desiderantique Amyntae, ut habitus quoque redderetur armigeri, lanceam dari iussit

The king having freed him [from his chains] further ordered, and Amyntas requested, that his hypaspist uniform (habitus...armigeri) should also be returned to him and he ordered that he be given a lancea (the light spear with which Roman auxiliaries were, generally, armed).

The general context is definitely based on a Greek source, Antiphanes' position as 'scriba equitum' was not a Roman post but corresponds well with the various 'grammateis' left in Egypt we here of in Arrian, both 'scriba' and 'grammateus' translating as 'secretary'. The problem is in how much of the fine detail we can ascribe to Curtius' Greek original and how much is his own Roman overlay, the Praetorian Guard had a uniform and were armed with lanceae.

I would be wary of endowing Greek terms with too much technical distinction, the base word in both the Hypaspists and Argyraspids, Leucaspids and Chalkaspids is aspis yet it is obvious that the last three, as sarissa troops could not have used a rimmed shield. Similarly, later phalangites are called 'peltophoroi' in Polybios and 'peltastes' in Livy who further describes the pelta as 'not unlike a caetratus' the round shield of some Spanish troops. Monumental evidence does not suggest these later shields were significantly smaller than those of Alexander's day. Originally a 'pelte' was the cresent shaped shield associated with the Amazons and their Persian models. Contemporary Greeks would know which sort of shield was meant from the context, ie they knew what a Macedonian shield looked like so a shield in the hands of a Macedonian could be described by any general shield words, in the same way Indian foot soldiers can be called 'hoplites' by Arrian, with no implication about their equipment only their close order and Diodoros can include lighter troops in his 'phalanx' totals in books XVIII-XX as 'phalanx' only means 'battle-line' in his source.

Otherwise I would agree with your comments on the lack of standardisation; if Curtius is right, hypaspist uniform need be no more than a helmet painted a standard colour or with a certain arrangement of plumes or just a shield colour (silver later, it seems).

Thank you for your time and effort, Xenophon. I really appreciate it.

Xenophon"]The first thing to say is that one should NEVER look to Hollywood as an accurate guide to historical costume......

Yeah, isn't it a shame? You'd think that with all their resources, that they'd at least be able to provide some accurate depictions - although they are known to have made a good job from time to time. Perhaps movies centered around ancient motifs would be better suited european production companies with european film makers?

The second is that there is very little evidence at all for what Alexander's army looked like, though enough to get a reasonable idea. For example, it is still debated as to whether the "Hypaspists" were armed with pelta/smallish shield and sarissa/pike, or aspis/large rimmed shield and doru/single handed spear.

I'd reckon they were pretty awesome with swords too, as they were always armed for the job at hand. It's incredible how most of them were in their fifties and sixties. The more I read about them, the more fascinating I find them...

The 'laminated linen cuirasses' almost certainly never existed. This was the late Peter Connolly's idea, put forward in the 1970's in his book "Greek Armies", but no evidence whatsoever has come forward to support his idea. What evidence we do have suggests that the Tube-and-yoke corselet (spolas) was of leather, sometimes re-inforced with bronze scales or small plates.

OK, so does the linothorax fall into that category; the laminated linen, I mean.

None of this equipment was particularly "uniform", and varied considerably between individual items, though it is highly probable that from Philip II's time onward, equipment such as shields, helmets pikes, spears etc were issued by the state/King. However, these were not made in factories, but by individual metal workers in small workshops.......

Hmm, interesting... So, what you are basically saying is that a Hypaspist's equipment could virtually consist of a muscled bronze cuirass and a phyrigan helmet with the massive cheek pieces covering most of the face save a peek-through for the eyes?

Thank you Agesilaos for your reply

Otherwise I would agree with your comments on the lack of standardisation; if Curtius is right, hypaspist uniform need be no more than a helmet painted a standard colour or with a certain arrangement of plumes or just a shield colour (silver later, it seems).

What exactly do you mean by this? I would hesitate to wager as to a generally implemented practice of non-armoured Hypaspist combatants, seeing as how there was a lot of hand-to-hand fighting. Surely, most of them wore armor, bronze and leather?


Listen, guys, here is a cool link to swords and stuff http://www.armae.com/Zenglish/greek_and ... _frame.htm

Which one of these swords, if any, do you think was most likely to have been used by a Shield Bearer?

robbie wrote:Which one of these swords, if any, do you think was most likely to have been used by a Shield Bearer?

Curtis, 8.14.28-29:

Then the Macedonians began to use axes - they had equipped themselves with such implements in advance - to hack off the elephants' feet, and they also chopped at the trunks of the animals with gently curving, sickle-like swords called kopides.

I'm not so certain about the axes - they seem a Roman colour - but the kopis is the curved Macedonian sword (single edged) often associated with the cavalry. Curtius actually uses the word and describes it as a slightly curved gladius.Kopis will come from his source. The context is a description of the phalanx battle with the elephants and it is unlikely that he means the Thracians and the Agrianes when he says "Macedonians".

What I meant was that only these items need have been uniform, not that this was their only equipment.

Thank you Paralus

Interesting information; OK, so the the Kopis is the closest we can get to ascertain as to the sword used.


Agesilaos

OK, I kind of suspected that, just wanted to make sure...



Once again, I think you guys are awesome, and I'm extremely grateful for the response I've received. I commend you all on your willingness to share and your unsparingness in effort to give your input.

Agesilaus wrote:

The problem is in how much of the fine detail we can ascribe to Curtius' Greek original and how much is his own Roman overlay, the Praetorian Guard had a uniform and were armed with lanceae.

I don't believe any of it is 'Roman overlay". Whilst it is true that the Imperial Praetorian guard were 'uniformed', again the iconography suggests that there were individual differences - there was no 'uniform' in the modern sense. Also, at the time Curtius wrote, the Praetorian Guard seem to have been armed with 'pila', not 'lancheae'.

Equally the latin word 'lanchea' is derived from the Macedonian dialect word 'longche/logche' to describe a shortish, dual purpose throwing/thrusting spear, related to hunting spears and often carried in pairs. This seems to have been the most common native Macedonian armament, with its associated circular 'pelta', prior to the introduction of the 'sarisa'/pike. (We see this equipment on the Aghios Athanasios frieze for example ).

'Habitus' too, strictly speaking, does not mean 'uniform' either but rather "dress or attire generally" or "condition, plight, habit, deportment, appearance" according to the Latin dictionary. We also know that professional soldiers tended to be proud of a 'soldierly appearance' - for example it was a punishment in the Roman army to be humiliated by being made to stand in just a tunic, without military accoutrements such as the military belt.

I think Curtius is pointing out something similar here. Standing in just a tunic and chains is not only a humiliation, but suggests a condemned prisoner. Being allowed to give the deportment/appearance of a 'hypaspist', complete with the dignity of being armed is a reminder of Amyntas' high standing ( again see the Aghios Athanasios frieze for a good impression of what he would have looked like), and again is also a subtle hint as to the King's attitude to Amyntas....

I would be wary of endowing Greek terms with too much technical distinction, the base word in both the Hypaspists and Argyraspids, Leucaspids and Chalkaspids is aspis yet it is obvious that the last three, as sarissa troops could not have used a rimmed shield.

Indeed, and of course over time, words could alter meaning. In Herodotus' and Thucydides time the shield of the Greek hoplite phalanx was the large ( 85-95 cm range) rimmed 'aspis', hence the word was synonymous with that shield. Later, when the Macedonian Phalanx, with its rimless 'pelta' type shields (66-75 cm range ) came into being, aspis became a generic word for the shield of the phalanx, regardless of exact type, and if the rimmed hoplite shield were being referred to in a context where it was not obvious, it needed to be distinguished e.g by being called 'argive aspis'. The Macedonian 'pelta' could indeed be compared to the Spanish 'caetra', also circular, rimless and of similar size ( 60-70cm range), though the grip - single grip in the case of the caetra - was different. So much so that Macedonian Guard 'Peltasts' of Philip V could be translated as 'caetrati' in Latin by Livy.

Robbie wrote:

OK, so does the linothorax fall into that category; the laminated linen, I mean.

Yes, 'linothorax' is a made up modern word to incorrectly describe the Tube-and-Yoke type corselets of classical Greece and later ( though Homer uses a similar word ). In classical Greek sources, the words 'thorakes lineois' ( body armour of linen) and similar are used to describe Persian armour, and this probably refers to the quilted variety as seen on the Alexander mosaic and elsewhere. Greek armour is never described as being made of linen. ( the reference occasionally forwarded of Alcaeus' poetry notwithstanding)

Hmm, interesting... So, what you are basically saying is that a Hypaspist's equipment could virtually consist of a muscled bronze cuirass and a phyrigan helmet with the massive cheek pieces covering most of the face save a peek-through for the eyes?

Like I said, possibly, but it would likely be restricted to senior officers and very wealthy scions of noble houses due to expense. It would not be general equipment of the rank-and-file and would be rare.

Which one of these swords, if any, do you think was most likely to have been used by a Shield Bearer?

Swords too, like the rest of the equipment, would be individualised. The most common type was the straight 'xiphos', and its related Spartan short version, but the 'kopis/machaira' curved type also seems to have been popular at this time.

Paralus wrote:

Curtis, 8.14.28-29:

Then the Macedonians began to use axes - they had equipped themselves with such implements in advance - to hack off the elephants' feet, and they also chopped at the trunks of the animals with gently curving, sickle-like swords called kopides.

I'm not so certain about the axes - they seem a Roman colour - but the kopis is the curved Macedonian sword (single edged) often associated with the cavalry. Curtius actually uses the word and describes it as a slightly curved gladius.Kopis will come from his source. The context is a description of the phalanx battle with the elephants and it is unlikely that he means the Thracians and the Agrianes when he says "Macedonians".

Soldiers coming up against novel foes have extemporised weaponry since time immemorial, and there would be plenty of hatchets and axes around the camp - firewood was a daily chore after all. That these and other "choppers" would have been handed out is not at all surprising. Quite who wielded them is not said, though at VIII.24 Curtius tells us "Alexander sent against the elephants the light-armed Agrianes and the other Thracians...." and these would surely have more opportunity to run around ham-stringing and so on, than the close packed ranks of the phalanx, at sarissa's length from the elephants ? On the other hand, Curtius says these tactics were adopted "late in the day"[VIII.14.28] when presumably light troops had withdrawn to the rear and the phalanx and the elephants were fighting one another. Perhaps the light troops, having by this stage run out of missiles re-armed themselves with "choppers" and returned to the fray ?

Since this particular detail doesn't appear in our other accounts of this battle, it may be made up by Curtius to add flavour....we simply can't know......

Praetorian guard with sword and lance,
wearing a cucullus (hooded cape); Trajanic marble stele
found in Pozzuoli, 2nd century CE.
Berlin, Pergamon Museum. Credits: Ann Raia, 2005

I have looked for further representations but asidefrom the adlocutio scenes on the arch of Constantine, which came from a monument of Aurelius and Verus and show spears rather than pila I have not found anything useful; most weapons, being added in metal, have been lost.

Common sense would equip what was essentially a riot police force with lanceae rather than pila. The purpose of a pilum was to deprive the enemy of his shield or penetrate his armour, these functions are excessive in an urban situation where a firm thrusting point would be more use in keeping a crowd at a distance and the handiness of the weapon essential in Rome's narrow streets. On campaign, no doubt, the Praetorians would take up their pila. Josephos, Jewish Antiquities, has Pontius Pilatus arm his legionaries with clubs rather than their normal weaponry for crowd control, so less than lethal force seems to have been a consideration.

Yes, 'habitus' is clothes but qualified by 'armigeri' we get 'the clothes of an hypaspist' and we call a soldier's clothes his uniform. This is not to imply any modern level of standardisation, on that we agree, but if you disallow a Roman veneer (not my personal view, but a perfectly defensible position) then Curtius' source is clearly saying that an hypaspist's accoutrements were recognisably different from another soldier's; both languages have a generic 'soldier', 'stratiotes' in Greek and 'miles' in Latin. Had the implication been simply that he wanted to look like a soldier, as you suggest, I think it more likely that it would have been phrased with these general terms. As you say it is certainly a Roman sense of 'dignitas', but certainly not Greek and debateable whether the Macedonians placed so much onus on looking the part. If we accept that the source had this then I would interpret it as meaning that Amyntas wanted, and Alexander allowed, to demonstrate not just his status as a soldier, which was hardly exceptional at a trial before the army, but his status as a member of the elite. Certainly part of his defence is the contrast of his rank and that of the 'scriba equitum', Antiphanes, his accuser.

I suspect the detail of the attack upon the elephants with axes and copides comes not from Curtius but from his source; 'kopis' surely comes from a greek source as is shown by Curtius' explanation of the term for his Roman audience. This does not exclude the Greek adding it for colour, however, Kleitarchos seems to have invented the horrific injuries caused by the scythed chariots at Gaugamela from his active imagination.

I'd add another shade of meaning to your comment on Curtius quote (7,1,17): if Amyntas wanted to retain his 'spear', it means that he wanted to be considered a "free man", not yet a "prisoner". The official deprived of his weapon, then as now, is an official under arrest, but Amyntas wanted to speak as a free man at full right, not a prisoner, already condemned.

Agesilaus wrote:

Praetorian guard with sword and lance,
wearing a cucullus (hooded cape); Trajanic marble stele
found in Pozzuoli, 2nd century CE.
I have looked for further representations but aside from the adlocutio scenes on the arch of Constantine, which came from a monument of Aurelius and Verus and show spears rather than pila I have not found anything useful; most weapons, being added in metal, have been lost.

Please forgive me for getting rather pedantic, but the spear shown here is a modern restoration ( as so often with ancient statuary - including the arch of Constantine.) If the circular shield under his arm is not also a modern restoration, then the original probably depicted a standard bearer. The museum has also incorrectly labelled the cloak. The 'cucullus' ( also called 'caracallus' -from which the Emperor of the same name acquired his nickname) was a 3rd C AD type of hooded cloak, reaching to the ankles. This chap wears the earlier, and shorter 'paenula', common and frequently depicted in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

With all due respect to common sense, for general duties in Rome, the Praetorians of this era wore civilian togas, with swords concealed beneath. Their main function was not so much a police one of crowd or riot control, but the rather more military one of bodyguards to the Emperor against would-be assassins. Neither shields nor shafted weapons seem to have been carried. It is possible that for anti-riot duties a 'fustuarum'[cudgel] may have been used, as in the example you give of Pilate. I doubt that lethal shafted weapons of any type were used for 'crowd control'. Certainly I can't think of an instance offhand from this era.....

Yes, 'habitus' is clothes but qualified by 'armigeri' we get 'the clothes of an hypaspist' and we call a soldier's clothes his uniform........then Curtius' source is clearly saying that an hypaspist's accoutrements were recognisably different from another soldier's; both languages have a generic 'soldier', 'stratiotes' in Greek and 'miles' in Latin. Had the implication been simply that he wanted to look like a soldier, as you suggest, I think it more likely that it would have been phrased with these general terms.

Hiphys wrote:

I'd add another shade of meaning to your comment on Curtius quote (7,1,17): if Amyntas wanted to retain his 'spear', it means that he wanted to be considered a "free man", not yet a "prisoner". The official deprived of his weapon, then as now, is an official under arrest, but Amyntas wanted to speak as a free man at full right, not a prisoner, already condemned.

I think 'habitus armigeri' likely means appearance/deportment/overall look of a hypaspist here, rather than just clothes, as I indicated in my previous post, but that is a minor quibble - we agree that the implication is clearly that a 'hypaspist' could be distinguished by his gear/accoutrements. Incidently, this doesn't necessarily mean that one of these distinctions was being equipped with a 'longche' rather than a 'sarissa', for we hear of a Macedonian fighting a duel against an Athenian carrying both 'sarissa' and 'longche', who is from the Phalanx. ( OTOH, we also hear in Plutarch's "Eumenes" of the Hypaspist commander Neoptolemus boasting of how he had served Alexander with 'longche' and shield, while Eumenes had only served with pen and writing tablets.)

...and thank you, Hiphys for elaborating the significance - that is what I was trying to get across with this...

Being allowed to give the deportment/appearance of a 'hypaspist', complete with the dignity of being armed is a reminder of Amyntas' high standing ( again see the Aghios Athanasios frieze for a good impression of what he would have looked like), and again is also a subtle hint as to the King's attitude to Amyntas....

and similarly, thanks to Agesilaus for...

If we accept that the source had this then I would interpret it as meaning that Amyntas wanted, and Alexander allowed, to demonstrate not just his status as a soldier, which was hardly exceptional at a trial before the army, but his status as a member of the elite. Certainly part of his defence is the contrast of his rank and that of the 'scriba equitum', Antiphanes, his accuser.

...which also indicates some of the subtle impression being conveyed by Amyntas and Alexander. My use of 'soldier' was a little loose - I certainly agree that it was his status as a senior Hypaspist Officer that was being put on display.....

I also agree with your comments about 'kopides' - use of the Greek does indeed imply that if this incidental detail is a 'gloss', it was added by Curtius' Greek source rather than him....

Xenophon wrote:Since this particular detail doesn't appear in our other accounts of this battle, it may be made up by Curtius to add flavour....we simply can't know......

Yes - exactly what I meant.

Xenophon wrote:I also agree with your comments about 'kopides' - use of the Greek does indeed imply that if this incidental detail is a 'gloss', it was added by Curtius' Greek source rather than him....

Clearly from the source as Curtius' explanation shows.

The "clothing' or accoutrements being asked for by Attalus are also form the source. Attalus is described as a "somatophylax" at Philip's murder along with Leonnatus and Perdiccas (that this is the uncle of Cleopatra returned for festivities is thoroughly unpersuasive). They are evidently of the agema of the hypaspists (not the 'seven'). Arrian, too, describes these troops as "somatophylakes" on several occasions for that describes their remit. Thus, as a former member of the agema under Philip, Attalus wants to remind all and sundry of his service over his career by testifying in a deportment that clearly establishes him as a "guard" and trusted individual. Agesilaos' point about the elite is also correct: these troops came from the nobility as, to my mind, Heckel has demonstrated. One needs to picture Peucestas in this position prior to his (temporary) elevation to the actual seven. Xenophon is likely correct that these are the soldiery depicted to the right in the symposium scene at Aghios Athenasios. Which makes one wonder at the identity of the occupant of the tomb...

This is Amyntas rather than Attallos, though you are right that Diodoros uses 'somatophylax' more generally than to apply to 'The Seven' as does Arrian it is not entirely clear whether it is the agema that is meant rather than the hypaspists generally. Similarly, Curtius uses 'Custos corporis' for 'somatophylax' in the larger sense and 'armiger', as here for the rest of the Hypaspists.

There seems to be confusion over what constitutes a 'gloss'; in this quote Curtius VIII 14 xxix

29 Copidas vocabant gladios leviter curvatos, falcibus similes, quis adpetebant beluarum manus.

It is the explanation of Copis which is the gloss, and the sentence works without it. The explanation (gloss) may be Curtius' own, but it is possible that it comes from a later editor and that it later found its way into the text. This certainly occurred, editors or Scholiasts even would write an explanation of an obscure word in the margin of a manuscript which was also where missing text was copied, subsequent copyists might then incorporate a gloss in the main body of the text (many copyists were not good at Latin in the Merovingian world and would not be able to decide which was a gloss and which a caret).

agesilaos wrote:This is Amyntas rather than Attallos, though you are right that Diodoros uses 'somatophylax' more generally than to apply to 'The Seven' as does Arrian it is not entirely clear whether it is the agema that is meant rather than the hypaspists generally.

Indeed. My error, please pardon my "mixed Andromenids". My only excuse is a head buried in a great hearse chase by Attalus. Gets worse in books 18-20 of Diodorus when one could spend years on a prosopography limited to the chorus line of Macedonian actors the Sicilian mentions only once. Philips, Atallids, Alcetai, Alexanders, Ptolemys and the like are legion.

The point, though, is that Amyntas - as with his his brother - served as a hypaspist and almost certainly in the agema. All the names of those identified in this context are of the nobility whereas the "regular" hypaspists are not (outside of their commander). The habitus armigeri (for which Curtius and no intermediary editor, irritatingly, offer no elucidation) asked for somehow clearly demonstrate his former staus a member of the agema - the king's "personal" foot troop and "guards".

The (kopides) gloss might just as easily have come from an intermediary editor though Curtius does have a habit of explaining Macedonian matters when he's so inclined (the paides and the supposed procedure for trials come to mind). Then again, it may be his cource but did Cleitarchus - the generally perceived major source - spend this amount of verbiage explaining Macedonian customs and such? We aren't ever likely to know.