A Spartan soldier returns home after a victorious battle, but he lost his shield in the fighting and chaos. So he's returning neither "with it" nor "on it". How big a deal really is it that he's returning without his shield?

In ancient Sparta, losing one's shield in battle was considered a significant disgrace and a mark of cowardice or incompetence. The shield, known as a Hoplon, was not only a piece of defensive equipment but also a symbol of Spartan identity, unity, and military prowess.

The famous saying "Return with your shield or on it" (Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς) reflects the importance Spartans placed on the shield and the expectation that a soldier would either return victorious with their shield intact or be carried back dead on their shield. This phrase underscores the idea that a Spartan's honour and dignity were closely tied to their performance in battle and their ability to uphold the ideals of Spartan warrior culture.

For a Spartan soldier to return home without their shield would have been a source of shame and humiliation, both for the individual and for their family and community. It would have been seen as a failure to fulfil their duty as a warrior and a betrayal of Spartan values.

The loss of a shield also had practical implications, as it was an expensive piece of equipment that was provided by the state. Losing a shield meant that the soldier would likely have to pay a fine or face other penalties, further compounding the disgrace of their failure.

Overall, while losing one's shield may not seem like a significant issue from a modern perspective, in the context of ancient Sparta, it was a serious matter that carried social, cultural, and practical consequences.