Origins of the Greek Aspis

**Charerg** · April 03, 2015, 03:44 AM

Generally, the famous hoplite shield (Aspis), is thought to be a purely Hellenic invention, or at least that is the impression I have. The Greeks called the shield "Argive shield", pointing out that the city of Argos was the first to develop and make use of these shields.

However, recently I ran across some Urartian shields. These are ceremonial ones made of bronze, diameter 70 to 100 cm.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

This shield belonged to Argishti I, king of Urartu from 786 to 764 BC. The handle of the shield was likely at the center (wikipedia only shows front face). As you can see, the familiar bowl shape was there. Plenty more pictures of similar shields can be found by googling "urartu+shield".

Seeing the familiar shape, one must wonder if the Argive Greeks were influenced by eastern designs when they created the Aspis. Also, I uderstand that Greek pottery of the time (Archaic period) was inspired by eastern designs (see Orientalizing period). Wikipedia states that Greek art of the era was inspired by Syrian and Assyrian examples, all countries bordering on Urartu.

So, what is your take on the matter? Aspis' shape came from the east or do you think it was a purely Hellenic invention?

**Mabruk** · April 03, 2015, 07:32 AM

My first instict would be a "no".

I just did a quick search with the terms you provided and did not find anything that depicts the usage of this type of shield. (I'm not saying there aren't any useful depictions, I just did not find them

)
Anyway, the shield you show seems to be heavily deformed, the others I saw seemed to be shaped like the part of a spere, like a cut off piece of an hollow orb (sorry, my english does not provide me with the correct words at the moment

). An Aspis is formed like a flattened bowl, still deep but just not like a partial orb, also it has a massive rim that I do not see on the urartu-shield.

The Aspis is highly adapted to the way of fighting it was supposedly used to - that's why I would try to find some depictions ofthe urartu-shield in action. But even if similarities should be found it would not be safe th say those shields had inspired the hellenes. While the "classical phalanx" is a very refined way of shield-wall-formation the general idea of a shield-wall or spear-hedge style of fighting is very basic and has been used by many cultures thoughout history to field large bodies of un-, or poorly trained troops.

Still, as many hellenic inventions or customs have been supposedly influenced by eastern cultures I would not generally discard the idea of some foreign influence. I'm just not up to date with the origins of the aspis at the moment.

Best regards

**Charerg** · April 03, 2015, 09:25 AM

I am surprised you find the shapes different. I think they are very close, compare these two for one example:

Urartu:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Aspis (from Italy):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Of course the handle was probably different, as I doubt the Urartu ones were equipped with "Porpax and Antilabe", but as far as the shape goes the differences are relatively minor.

**Mabruk** · April 03, 2015, 09:58 AM

You are correct, those two look similar. Still, the curvatures of both shields look different to me. As far as I know, the Urartu shield is (maybe only because the ones on display seem to be ceremonial) is made from bronze and that's it. The bronze part of the aspis however is on top of the actual wooden shield, but that is also not the part, you were talking about

I find this interesting. If you want, I could look up what we have about the Urartu shield in our archeological library at the university, so we can see more pictures and maybe take a look inside?

**Charerg** · April 03, 2015, 07:10 PM

By all means, if you have access to better sources, make use of them. And you're right that the Urartu shield is more convex than the Aspis, although some Illyrian examples of similar design as the Aspis could also be rather convex in shape. The Illyrian variants were smaller in diameter though, generally speaking. Later they were likely adopted by the Macedonians as the smaller-diameter phalangite shield, or "Pelte Makedonike".

An example of an Illyrian-Macedonian shield:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Mabruk** · April 04, 2015, 03:59 AM

I'll come back to this next week. Currently the library is closed due to easter.

**Appius Pulcher** · April 04, 2015, 06:09 AM

Interesting hypothesis.
However I can think of a couple of things that point in another direction.
First of all the most revolutionary thing about the aspis was not the shape of the shield, but the grip. Now, we can't see those urartian shields from behind, but I find it unlikely that they have the Argive grip.

Another thing is that if I recall correctly, the aspis became more curved over time, and started out closer to a flat round shield. The urartian shields are already very curved, so if the aspis evolved from these, I would expect those to be very curved from the beginning as well. I can't at the moment find the source for the evolution of curvature in the aspis however, but I remember reading it somewhere. Otherwise someone correct me if I'm wrong.

**Satapatiš** · April 04, 2015, 07:54 AM

Important part of Aspis is its flattened dome profile and being slightly thicker at its base than in the center. It isn't hemispherical. Its center is nearly flat, then it curves towards the rim. The entire shield is made to faciliate pressure during the phase when opposing phalanxes are pushing at each other, transfering it to the rim. Not every round, metal faced shield is aspis, or can work in the same way. Greeks had contacts with other cultures, but a round shield is just a round shield and was used in many cultures independently. Those Urartian shields are a bit too deep to work as aspis, while this Illyrian one seems to be a bit too shallow for the same function.

**Genava** · April 07, 2015, 06:15 PM

http://lakodaemon.co.uk/sea-peoples-...econstruction/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages

**Cookiegod** · April 09, 2015, 07:44 AM

Findings like the Nebra sky disk (using metals from various distant parts of Europe) and the Taklamakan mummys indicate, that the world has in some ways been globalized early on.
So basically you can be sure there has been some contacts between the peoples.
But: The aspis being an important part of a specific kind of warfare the Urarti never employed, I'd think the shield evolved alongside with the warfare rather gradually, starting with the figure 8 shield employed by Mykene. Compare the figure 8 shield with the Dipylon shield and the Bootian shield, and it looks like an evolution.

Round shields are probably some of the most widespread types of shields that can be found all over the world. The Herzsprung shields are one example and were found in Germany and the nordic countries:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronzes...Froslunda2.jpg
You can see the shields are very similar to the Aspis and have a similar date (8th century BC) as your Urartian shields, but the one pictured above was found in Sweden.

**Genava** · April 09, 2015, 10:09 AM

Personnaly I think there was a great diversity in shape for the shields of this period. When the phalanx start to be used, the most pratical shape for the shield has become the most common.
Some pictures of old hoplites:
http://www.hellenic-art.com/spartan-...entury-bc.html
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/383650461980075013/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/451063718903414989/

Pictures of the mycenean warriors:
https://www.pinterest.com/rishardg/m...-1600-1100-bc/
http://www.mpfilmcraft.com/mpfilmcra...ean_Greek.html

And with the big conflict with the sea peoples, there was surely a lot of weaponary exchange.
https://books.google.ch/books?id=gB1DBgAAQBAJ

The most reasonable is to think the Aspis was developed after the Greek warriors started to rely on the phalanx for the battle. And that is because of the development of the Greece during the 8th century:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Asection%3D16

Large-size of infantrymen with good equipment and better training => specialisation step-by-step in the phalanx => selection of the best weapons => improvement in the selected weaponary

I think there is social and cultural reasons to add in this simplified schema, like the development of city-state army and the conception of "national" culture favorising the development of a kind of weapons.

Sorry for my bad english.

**Charerg** · April 12, 2015, 12:26 PM

I'm not sure if it's safe to assume that the Argive shield was originally developed with a specific tactic in mind, other than being a heavy infatry shield (in other words, large). Despite the common perception that the "Heroic Age" was all about duelling champions and undisciplined mobs, modern history believes that military organisation and formation-based combat existed in Greece in some form already during the Mycenaean era (this was certainly the case for their neighbouring civilisations, such as the Hittites and the Egyptians). In other words, lines of heavy infantry equipped with large shields were definitely a part of Hellenic warfare well before the famous "hoplite" developed.

Also, the Chigi vase and other sources prove that the early hoplites carried two spears into battle. These were probably lighter than the Dory, one being thrown before the charge while the other was used at close quarters. This would imply that the early hoplite tactics may have been more charge-oriented than the ponderous advance of the phalanx in its later form.

Someone commented that the shape of the Aspis was designed with the "Othismos" (Pushing) in mind. I'd like to point out that the interpretation of phalanx vs phalanx combat as culminating in a huge pushing match is controversial. Personally, I do not believe this is the case. As far as I know, the standard depth of a phalanx was only 8 men, which isn't especially deep. The phalanx was more a wide line of men than a deep block of men. I think that very likely morale played the largest part in phalanx combat. The physical contact probably didn't last very long before either side broke and fled, and likely involved mostly stabbing with spears and swords rather than trying to overthrow the enemy force with sheer physical mass.

With all that said, I do agree that the Aspis was probably designed for "shield wall" tactics, but I don't think it likely that the shape and the grip were designed with "pushing" in mind. It may have been simply a question of ergonomics. The Argive grip allows you to use your entire arm to support the weight of the shield, which was no doubt helpful in holding the heavy shield up in battle stance for an extended period.

So, all in all, I'd say the Aspis was developed for heavy infantry, but I'm not sure if it was developed with the "phalanx" in mind, at least not in the same sense as would later be the case. Though I agree that the grip of the Aspis was likely a hellenic invention, I wouldn't completely rule out foreign influence when it comes to the "bowl shape" of the shield. While bronze coated round shields were in use all across Europe almost, none that I know off were convex in shape apart from the Hellenic ones and the Urartu examples. Btw, the Swedish Herzsprung shield is very likely imported, as I don't think the Swedes had access to a supply of bronze, and probably relied a lot on imports from the Celtic world when it comes to bronze equipment.

**Satapatiš** · April 13, 2015, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Charerg

Someone commented that the shape of the Aspis was designed with the "Othismos" (Pushing) in mind. I'd like to point out that the interpretation of phalanx vs phalanx combat as culminating in a huge pushing match is controversial. Personally, I do not believe this is the case. As far as I know, the standard depth of a phalanx was only 8 men, which isn't especially deep. The phalanx was more a wide line of men than a deep block of men. I think that very likely morale played the largest part in phalanx combat. The physical contact probably didn't last very long before either side broke and fled, and likely involved mostly stabbing with spears and swords rather than trying to overthrow the enemy force with sheer physical mass.

It may be controversial, but it's the only theory giving a believable answer to two obvious weird traits of aspis - why its wooden core is thinner at its center (it's counterproductive, more obvious would be to made a shield entirely uniform in thickness or a shield thicker at its center), and why it has this shallow, flattened dome profile in cross-section. Otherwise these two traits are making very little sense. It's not like even its method of manufacturing makes it easier that way. It's made of plywood.
I remain completeley unconvinced there was any external influence at aspis other than having some generic round shield as a starting point, but round shields are generic to the point of being encountered pretty much everywhere (aside of maybe Egypt).

I'm pretty sure those Urartian shield don't have profiles in cross-section similar to aspis.

This is cross-secton profile of aspis:

It's really weird, not really bowl-like or a hemisphere. Pretty much unique to this kind of shield.

And unless you need to deal with more pushing, it makes absolutely no sense because is weakens the shield at its center.

Also, "only" eight men isn't really "only". It's a fairly deep line.

**Charerg** · April 14, 2015, 01:34 AM

Eight men is pretty standard, the Romans used it too, likely various "barbarians" as well. In any case, is there an actual source detailing that Aspis' wooden core is thinner at the centre? Since I doubt any actual wooden parts have been preserved to present day.

Even if the wooden part is thinner at the centre, that hardly implies use in some sort of "pushing match" - which isn't very likely to break the shield in the first place, as the force will be spread across the entire face. Also, plywood construction? Once again, are there any ancient sources that back up that the aspis was made of plywood?

Also, the shape of the Aspis wasn't quite standard. According to Osprey's "Warrior: Greek Hoplite (480-323 BC)", the classical Aspis had a more deeply curved bowl than its archaic counterpart.

Furthermore, a quote from the same book:

"Protective quality was sacrificed for lightness and overall cover. Weighing about 6.2kg (13.5 pounds), the hoplite shield was capable of turning a spear- or sword-thrust, but was not proof against arrows or javelins. Many vase paintings show pierced hoplite shields. The Spartan general Brasidas was wounded when his shield 'turned traitor' (Plut., Mor. 219 C). Xenophon (An. 4.1.18) describes how Leonymos the Lakonian died when a spear went through his shield. The hoplite valued his mobility more than his complete protection."

The point is that hoplite equipment and tactics weren't as 'heavy' as one might think. To me this doesn't favour the interpretation of 'pushing match' combat.

**Satapatiš** · April 14, 2015, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Charerg

Also, plywood construction? Once again, are there any ancient sources that back up that the aspis was made of plywood?

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/19-gree...ld-photos.html

Yes, there are. Albeit this shield is actually more uniform in thickness.

It's made of layers, or rings, of wood. Albeit it's not a modern plywood, so more like a "plywood".

And what exactly it proves that Romans were also using eight meen deep formation? It's still fairly deep formation. Besides, Romans started with phalanxes so it might be an origing of their eight men deep formation.

Also, if archaic aspis is less curved than a classical one, then it's a one reason more to not connect those Urartian shields to aspis, because they are both more curved in crossection and older.

**Charerg** · April 14, 2015, 06:54 AM

Of course the Urartian shields are not identical with the Aspis. That does not necessarily mean that some degree of 'inspiration' didn't take place. Although I agree that the Aspis was largely a Hellenic invention, I wouldn't rule out foreign influence either. And one has to remark that the shape of the Urartian shields is remarkably similar, generally speaking. Certainly far closer to the Aspis than the "wicker shields" usually associated with eastern warfare of the period.

And although it's interesting to remark that the Aspis was thicker at the side than the center, that doesn't necessarily support the "pushing" hypothesis. This part of the shield was were most blows would fall (since there's no point hitting the center of a shield), so it makes sense to make it thick. Also, the shape of the Aspis may relate to its use in a "shieldwall", the bowl like shape allows you to overlap your shield with your neighbor without having to fear that your hand will be squeezed against his shield.