Printable View
Semi-off the time frame...i think.
Are there any links between the persian-median Taka shield and the Thraikian Pelte?
I noticed that they're both cresent shaped, and fill the same niche in the battlefield as the skirmisher's first (and only) tool of defence.
Individual development or cultural influence?
p.s. No pics, I'm slacking at work =P
Here are some images:
Taka
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/...n_Warriors.jpg
Pelte
http://uoregon.edu/~klio/maps/gr/peltast2.jpg
That sort of shield is fairly common throughout Asia. As the description in the picture of the Peltast explains, the Persians introduced light skirmishers to the Thraikans, who adopted their specialised shields as well.
hmm....... Interesting question, worth further research. I would say individual development. Something in their shape, usefulness and characteristics that makes them appeal to both remote factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
IIRC the Persians picked theirs up from their nomad cousins in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Dunno where the Thracians came up with it and if they picked it up from the Scythians and others drifting down the western Black Sea coast or not, but given that there were also Thracians in northwestern Asia Minor the quite useful form was presumably soon picked up by their various neighbours. The peculiar takabara "crescent shield spearmen" and "crescent shield archers" the Achaemenids began using in Asia Minor at least after the Persian Wars (presumably because such mobile light infantry was better suited to dealing with hoplites than the somewhat static "archer-pair" system) have been theorised by some authors to have been pretty much straight copypastas of some local hill tribes' war gear, and for that matter, probably largely consisted of said hill tribes working as mercenaries.
=/ if the thraikioi copied the persian taka, when y not copy their choppas?
Good theory! Suomalainen dude!Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
For one thing, Scythians =/= Persians though both *are* Iranian-speakers. For another, AFAIK they picked up the kopis/machaira too. For a third, they went one better in the rhomphaia.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
aren't they ancesterally the same stock of people though? the Westward migration of indo european tribes, those that settled earlier became persians...those that kept riding their ponies...became the scythians....
I know I'm making a lot of generalizing assumptions there, correct me.
Yes, you`re right, Persian and Scythian are both classified as Indo-Aryan languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
They're more like closely related cousins.
How culturally similar were they though?
Think of it as like modern French People and Italian People in extent of similarity.
a similar language, quite a few common words, same/similar religions, but a different national identity and different lifestyle.
Grossly different lifestyle; one was nomadic, the other settled...
I would like to to ask about the advantages of such shield. Because it looks too small to offer good protection and the strange shape looks complicated to produce (I don't have any experience with wood carving, so I could be wrong).
AFAIK the Persian version at least was of their preferred osier-stiffened hide construction, for which the shape is relatively irrelevant. The nomads probably used the same technique, as they had much easier time coming by hide than wood planks. Not sure about the Thracians; given that they lived in friggin' forests, they probably used hide-covered wooden construction instead. (Ditto for the Anatolian and Iranic hill tribes that also adopted this style of shield; mountains usually feature decent amounts of trees at some heights.)
Anyway, relatively small light shields are used quite differently from big heavy "portable obstacles" like the scutum (and to a lesser degree the aspis), namely in a much more mobile and "proactive" style where the shield is used to actively intercept, redirect and ward off blows, as opposed to the more static and "damage absorbing" technique larger, strudier and heavier shields more or less by their sheer weight already dictate for their users. Perhaps also worth noting that sword-fighters have generally tended to favour light and agile shields of modest if not outright small dimensions, as that suits particularly longer blades well. Spearmen and shortsword fighters (notably the Romans) can get by with rather more massive types if they want to, as their weapons don't require quite the same amount of "clearance" to employ effectively.
Anyways, the main distinguishing point of these two types was the semicircular cut-out at the top which gave them their distinctive crescent shapes, the point of which was to improve the visibility of the user - an entirely logical tweak when you remember their main original users were javelin- and bow-armed light infantry and cavalry.
So is it possible, that they were invented seperately, both peoples wanted shield for that kind of tasks and ended with the same design?
*shrug* Damned if I know. Would have to look up the rough dates of adoption by both, though given that both were in contact with the roughly same steppe nomads they may also both have copied the basic idea - in slightly different versions - at different times.
OTOH, cut-outs in shields by themselves were nothing new. Just take a look at the "violin"/"Boeotian Eight" oval shield with symmetrical side cut-outs used by both the Greeks (before the adoption of the aspis) and the Persians, and earlier still IIRC by the Mycenean spearmen.
I see you all didn't notice when I posted a clear explanation of how the Thraikioi came to adopt the Pelte.
Here is a transcription of what the image said:
The author doesn't say it outright, but the Thraikians adopted the Persian taka when they drilled their soldiers in the new skirmishing role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Companion Cavalry