Talk:Ancient Macedonian army

Regarding Linothorax

The page should be edited, along with most pages involved with the hellenistic period. The use of linothorax is a popular memetic mutation not based in archeology/history. Linen corslets are mentioned occasionally in period literature, however this was of twined or quilted construction which was the norm for all soft armor across the planet. Glued linen is completely unsupported and driven entirely by art students from Wisconsin-Green Bay that lacked any supporting textual, archeological, or aristic evidence. Not only does it quite literally delaminate in climates like Greece itself, there simply is no basis for its existence beyond hypotheticals by students which is wholly unrelated to historical study. The "Tube and Yoke" design found in artwork depicting stiff armor is probably comprised of spolas, ie leather/rawhide protection. Really there should be a purge of the linothorax "reconstruction" in general from the wikia, as it spreads misinformation of period warfare.

~W

This is an opinion, but it is far from universal within relevant scholarship (stretching far beyond Wisconsin). It does have supporting artistic evidence, which is mentioned in the text. Your opinion is extremist, as the article text includes reference to the possibility that 'soft armour' could be stitched, quilted or leather-faced. Urselius (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

As i have appointed in the image "Macedonian Battle Formation" there is a problem because the hypaspists are called "heavy cavalry" when they was infantry.

-Fco

Deleted this portion

"but this would contradict statues and reports contemporary to phalangist troops that showed these soldiers wearing large and heavy shields over one arm; regardless"

The phalangites did not "hold onto" their shields directly in their left hard - the small heavy shield the phalangites used were strapped onto their left arm, leaving both their left and right hands free to wield the heavy sarissa pike. Intranetusa (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes and corrections

"It seems to appear that Alexander would organize his left flank into a thin line to make it appear weak, while a massive phalanx would be on the right." There is no evidence of Alexander varying the depth of his phalanx. Was is true is that his left was often the point of the hardest fighting--as in Issus, where the Persians focused the brunt of their cavalry assault.

"It is the belief of some that these pikes were so large and heavy ..." Weight had nothing to do with it. Length did.

"... that they had to be wielded with two hands in battle." It's not the "belief of some"; it is physically impossible to use a sarissa effectively with one hand.

"The phalangite training was sufficient to permit proper use of the shield and sarissa." Actually, it was the shield's sling, suspended around the wielder's neck and shoulder that kept the shield in place. Connolly also asserts that there was a forearm sleeve that helped keep it from moving and gave the phalangite better control--and a hand-grip that could be used when the spear was not in hand.

"The typical Macedonian phalanx was divided into groups of 800 phalangites, ..." According to whom? Very little is known about Phillip's phalanx, and even less about its sub-divisions.

"Before a battle the sarissa were carried in two pieces and then slid together when they were being used." Spoken as a fact... there is no evidence in the extant record of this happening.

I deleted the "short" from "short sword", as it was unecessary. The xiphos, machaira and falcata that would have been used by a phalangite are hardly smaller than the average swords of their contemporaries, and only mere inches shorter (if that) than the gladius they would be conquered by.

"So long as everyone was using the same tactics these weaknesses were not immediately apparent, but with the advent of the Roman legion they proved fatal in every major engagement, the most famous being the Battle of Pydna, as the Romans were able to advance through gaps in the line and easily defeat the Phalangites once in close." Deleted due to innaccuracy and lack of relevance.

1) Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice. 2) The armies fielded by Flamininus and Paulus at Cynoscephalae and Pydna were largely non-Roman. The armies Pyrrhus defeated were actually much moreso, with fewer non-Roman troops. 3) Pydna was decided partially by the rough terrain Perseus' phalanx marched into, but the extant record (largely Plutarch and Livy) makes it clear that the deciding factor was the departure of the cavalry on the flanks. By the time the gaps were forming, Paulus' cavalry and elephants were already destroying the phalanx's flank.

Phoebus Americanos (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

So I moved this article to Army of ancient Macedon yesterday....but should the "a" be capitalized? (I.e. move the page to Army of Ancient Macedon or Army of Ancient Macedonia?) Thanks in advance. the_ed17 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand the question. Can you please rephrase? Seleukosa (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I apoligize. I am referring the the a in "ancient"...I am wondering if it should be capitalized for the title of the article.....So instead of its current name, Army of ancient Macedon, I am wondering if it should be Army of Ancient Macedon (The "A" in Ancient now being capitalized)...any clearer? the_ed17 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This artical refers to Macedonia as a state or province of Greece. It is well documented that Macedonia was it's own sovereign nation with it's own language that is spoken today. I find this reference not only infactual, but also insulting. Please make the required changes so reflect the facts as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.42.187 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A) No it doesn't. B) This isn't an article about language - Ancient Macedonian is a dead language and the Ancient Macedonian upper classes spoke both Ancient Macedonian and Koine Greek - and it is recorded that they did so. And C) No!Urselius (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

However, since the article about the state is now at Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and Macedonian army redirects here, why don't we move this to Macedonian army (along the likes of Roman army, Byzantine army etc)? Constantine ✍ 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know? Certainly any additions to "Macedonian army" dilutes its searchability and not many people will be looking for the army of modern Macedonia (FYROM).Urselius (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal pronouns

There appear to be a lot of personal pronouns (we, I, etc.) in the article. Per Wikipedia:Pronoun#Tone we should not use first person narrative. I'm going to work on it a bit, but I'd appreciate if anyone else that notices it helps. C6541 (T↔C) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Ancient Macedonian army. There's a rough consensus that the suggested title requires this further disambiguation but that the current title isn't preferable. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Army of Macedon → Macedonian army – As pointed out above, the country article has been moved from Macedon to Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and Macedonian army already redirects here. The army of Philip II, Alexander and their successors is and most probably will remain a far more popular subject that the military of the Republic of Macedonia, a fact confirmed by a GBook search. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the army of the current country of Macedonia would be a scholarly topic of modern history and military studies, and current geopolitics, so if you want to match the other article, it would be Macedonian (ancient kingdom) army or Macedonian army (ancient kingdom). The way we treat topics on Wikipedia, modern extant countries get the primary position, or we have a disambigation page like at Macedonia. So "Macedonian army" should be a disambiguation page like Macedonia and Macedonian. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Erm, not necessarily. When there is a clear primary topic, then the primary topic gets the simple title, and the others get to be disambiguated. And usage is overwhelming: out of the first hundred results in GBooks for "Macedonian army", only nine refer to the Army of the RoM, and a couple of others to various Greek and Ottoman armies. In other words, the Macedonian army can easily be at its proper name (Ancient Macedonian army would be another possibility), and a disambiguation notice can be added pointing to the Army of the Republic of Macedonia. Constantine ✍ 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Army of Macedonia currently points to the FYRM army article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose move, keep Macedonian army as a disambiguation page, per guideline at WP:NCMAC#Other page titles: "If a sub-article of the type "X of the Republic of Macedonia" conflicts with an existing article "X of Greek/ancient Macedonia", a regular disambiguation page pattern according to WP:DAB with no "primary topic" will be used (i.e. "X of Macedonia" will be a disambiguation page)". (To clarify: if it came to an actual primacy argument, I'd probably side with Cplakidas, given the overwhelmingly more prominent historical role of the ancient as opposed to the modern army, but the NCMAC process deliberately decided in favour of a single wholesale solution for all "M." subpage pairs rather than the alternative of deciding each pair separately.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  (Note: something needs to be fixed about the capitalized alternative Macedonian Army: it currently redirects to Army of Macedon, but it is automatically linked to from {{Armies in Europe}}, which assumes that all page titles of the type "X'ian Army" refer to the modern states.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, all right. How about the Ancient Macedonian army alternative? On "Macedonian Army", should it redirect to the modern army or to the Macedonian army dab page? Constantine ✍ 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No objection to "Ancient Macedonian army", if you find "of Macedon" ugly. About "Macedonian Army", to prevent confusion, I'd strongly favour keeping the uppercase and lowercase versions in sync with each other, which means Macedonian Army should lead to the same dab page. (Which means the {{Armies in Europe}} template would still be broken.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • "Ancient Macedonian army " is fine by me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support in the Reliable English language sources the Macedonian army always (or close to it) refers to King Philip's and Alexander the Great's army (WP:COMMONNAME). A hatnote would take care of anyone who arrives at the page by mistake. If in the future that usage changes then the pages can always be moved when that happens. --PBS (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You have an expansive view of "always" then. Try a perusal of BBC News articles. —  AjaxSmack  16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support In agreement with the comment above. Urselius (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ancient Macedonian army. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I've solved the inbound linking issue by editing {{European topic}}, assuming this doesn't cause any side effects. Designing templates so that they only work correctly if every related article conforms to some arbitrary naming convention, with no exceptions, is a Bad Idea™. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment there are alot of those templates. "Topics of X" for each continent, or each US state... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose original proposal per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Support ancient Macedonian army if others agree. —  AjaxSmack  16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the article should be at "Macedonian army". BBC News is, by its nature, not going to have much news about the army of Alexander, so it is not a reliable indicator as to usage. A search even in simple Google shows that the overwhelming majority refers to the ancient army and not the modern one. The main obstacle here, as Fut Perf indicated, is the WP:NCMAC guideline. Constantine ✍ 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article doesn't quite qualify as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but neither does Army of the Republic of Macedonia. In May, army of Macedon received 3517 views, and Army of the Republic of Macedonia received 3529 views; almost exactly even. I think Macedonian army should remain a disambiguation page, but this article should be moved to something less ambigious, such as ancient Macedonian army, or possibly even Macedonian army (ancient kingdom), mirroring Macedonia (ancient kingdom). BlindMic (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image

The new heading image is so very dull!

Other possibilities:

Philip II

Hypaspist - modern reconstruction

Urselius (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and shifting of material from Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

I'm just letting others known that I am massively expanding this article with materials taken from Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Per Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style, I am trimming details from the main article and shifting it here, treating this article as a sibling or sub-article of the main one. I have cited three sources thus far: Sekunda (2010), Hammond and Walbank (2001), and Errington (1990), adding full reference info for them in the sources section. I have also removed a lot of non-sourced material in this article, since we shouldn't have a bunch of paragraphs without even a single citation. Thankfully the vast majority of statements I removed were simply replaced with similar statements that are actually sourced (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about how to properly cite sources). Raise any objections if you have them, but the material I have added is well-referenced and uses academic sources. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have some doubts about the image of a "Macedonian shield" being a shield as such. There is no scale, but it looks small, a full-size shield would just consist of the bronze facing, and any bronze fittings, as such it would be thin in comparison to its diameter and I would expect to see some evidence of plastic distortion or bending; there is none. The pattern of wear on the gilding suggests that it is a small votive offering in the shape of a shield. Still a useful image, but I would be happier with some caveats in the figure legend. Urselius (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have done some research and the Bonce shield, whilst certainly displaying the star, was excavated in many fragments and was badly distorted. The image must be of a much smaller bronze model of a shield, presumably votive or from a small-scale sculpture. I have therefore modified the caption. Urselius (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Urselius: Hello. You might be right about all of this, but it strikes me as violating Wikipedia:No original research. You are not allowed to introduce your own speculation and claims into the article. You are only allowed to cite journalistic or academic sources on the matter, via Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do you have a source for your idea? If so please present it. Otherwise I'm afraid that citation needed tag I just added to your caption will have to stay. Regards Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Hi. There is at least one Vergina sun-bearing bronze model shield out there, but it is not identical to the one pictured. The photo is most definitely not the bronze shield discovered at Bonce; that was excavated in a number of pieces and was not intact when assembled. One of the larger pieces is shown here: [[1]]. We are reliant on the uploader of the image to have been accurate and reliable, which he or she obviously wasn't; therefore, the upload amounts to original research itself. I think that the image is essentially unsourced, or at least its source is demonstrably inaccurate, and unreliable. I suspect that it is too compromised to be included in the article. Urselius (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just found out that there were fragments of three shields found at Bonce, but all were incomplete. At least one will be reconstructed as far as is possible, none of the fragments looks like the photo. Urselius (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Urselius: hi again. Those are interesting if not convincing details and you seem to be right about this. Unfortunately I can't find any academic sources on the matter. My access to JSTOR and other scholastic databases is very limited and I've been unable to find anything of use at Google Books. That being said, the image we are discussing actually does claim a source. It says that it comes directly from a member serving at the National Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and that the editor to consult on the matter is Blaze Ristovski. Mind you, sometimes academic sources can be wrong and that is why we have usually consult a variety of sources in order to see what the scholarly consensus is (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus as well as Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). It is unfortunate that in this case we have a claim from one source but a lack of sources to support or oppose the claim. We seem to be at an impasse here, unless you can find an article or book that clears everything up. Feel free to remove the image for now if you think that it is too misleading, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have access to Juhel's Fragments de "Boucliers macédoniens" au nom du roi Démétrios... on the Bonce shield finds, and it describes 160 fragments from 3 shields inscribed with the name of King Demetrios (Demetrios Poliorcetes). None of the photographs in the paper is close to that of the image on Wikimedia. I think that a non-committal wording could be devised for the image, however. I will give it a go, see what you think. Urselius (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me for now, but if it can be deduced from Juhel's book that the image being used now isn't even the same piece of evidence from the archaeological dig, then that presents a serious problem. Perhaps there were other shields that have been found since the publication of Juhel's work? We'd need detailed information from very arcane scholarly sources on recent archaeology to clear this up. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

On a different subject, I now have a copy of Markle (1982) Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great. I should be able to beef up citations, and perhaps text, on arms and armour, and especially tactics. Urselius (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Urselius: cool! Good luck with that. If you have time, you should also consider beefing up the article Antigonid Macedonian army as well. I have shifted some material over there from the main article Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but it needs a lot of work. Thankfully it has some good images and a decent amount of citations already. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic point-scoring

There have been a number of anonymous edits inserting "Greek" ethnicity into prominent places in the lead. This is pointless nationalistic tub-thumping. The historical importance of the Macedonians is that they created the Hellenistic world and spread Greek civilisation widely. This is not the importance of the Macedonian army, its importance is military and political. An exact parallel is the Roman army, because it allowed the spread of the Italic languages (Romance) and Roman civilisation, but no one is insisting on inserting "the Italic Roman state" into the articles on the Roman army. In short, the article makes it plain that the Macedonians were a semi-barbarous people on the outskirts of Greek civilisation. Anyone so interested can find out on Wikipedia that the Macedonians spoke a rustic Northern Greek dialect, which was looked down upon by metropolitan Greeks from the city-states. The Greeks themselves were not entirely sure of the Greekness of the Macedonians. The Macedonians were not automatically accredited as members of pan-Hellenic associations. For example Philip II sponsored contestants at the Olympic Games, not as a Macedonian, but because of his claimed descent from the royal line of Argos; he was, as a result, a "real Greek" by descent. Urselius (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the same guy pushing his nationalist POV in all the articles related to Ancient Macedonia... T8612 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess that the IP address will eventually be blocked. Probably the recent "North Macedonia" name change debate has provoked it. Sad that some people from a country with such a long and distinguished cultural history feel so insecure. Urselius (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Far more unfortunate those that bizarrely claimed ancient Paeonia "Macedonia" evaded over the former Yugoslavians recent identity quick change into apparently antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period. Also rather curious that those the claim Slavs "Macedonians" on some non-existent absolute right to recognition, don't follow their own alleged principles when it comes to the indisputable Hellenic self-determination of ancient Macedonians themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.112.173 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

By your logic the English cannot call themselves British, because they do not speak a Brythonic Celtic language. This alone invalidates your argument. Urselius (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected. T8612 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hypaspist.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I don't think there's much in the Macedonian phalanx article that isn't covered here in Ancient Macedonian army.Unbh (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Though there is some overlap, it should not be forgotten that the Macedonian phalanx was not only used by the Macedonian army, but also the different Hellenistic armies across the ancient world. Instead of merging it into another article, the Macedonian phalanx article should be expanded with information on its later developments in the Hellenistic militaries. For instance, there is some debate on whether different regimes on the border of the Greek world (such as in Central Asia and India) adopted the Macedonian phalanx; these kinds of topics could not be discussed in the Ancient Macedonian army article. Applodion (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as above, the Macedonian phalanx became the standard military model of the Hellenistic era and was not limited to Macedonia as a result. T8612 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, for the reasons already advanced. Urselius (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As there's no support for this proposal, and the proposer has now been blocked as the sock of an editor banned in 2016(!), I have removed the proposed merge tags. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hoplon/Aspis/Argive shield

I think it's pretty clear that it shouldn't be hoplon, but I don't think there's a good case for using argive shield over aspis .The term used in most sources is aspis, even if that can also encompass other things. WP:OTHER not withstanding, the aspis page doesn't even call it the argive shield at any point, and does solely talk about the hoplite shield.Unbh (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be hoplon, recent scholarly clarification has shown what ancient usage was. This page can be better than the Wikipedia aspis page, the aspis page can also be improved in accuracy. If we are following ancient usage, as we appear to be over 'hoplon', then we need to use the ancient terms for the 'hoplite shield'. We know that ancient usage called it 'aspis', but we also know that ancient Greek usage employed this word for shields in general, it is not a specific term. The earliest inscriptional record for a shield maker is of a man from Argos. Pausanias and Dionysius refer to the hoplite shield as an 'Argive shield', this is therefore supported by ancient Greek sources and is more specific than 'aspis'. I would propose that both 'Argive shield' and 'aspis' should be mentioned in the text, but 'Argive shield' be given more prominence because of its greater specificity. The construct 'Argive aspis' might be used to advantage. See: Hoplites at War: A Comprehensive Analysis of Heavy Infantry Combat in the Greek World, 750-100 BCE, By Paul M. Bardunias, Fred Eugene Ray, Jr., 2016, McFarland. Urselius (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have had a look at the aspis page, and it is a mess. It could not be used to support any argument, as it is so poor and lacking in citations. Urselius (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the aspis page needs a total do over. I don't think an 'argive aspis' is going to help anyone understand this better than 'argive shield'Unbh (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The book I cited uses the construct 'Argive aspis', though it uses 'Argive shield' more, which is why I mentioned it. Urselius (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)