Macedonian Soldier Stele

[John Conyard]

I’ve had various guests staying since before Christmas and have spent more time in the kitchen than on the computer. But a friend did tell me an amusing story.

At a big international archaeological conference considering the nature of the Roman army a fire alarm sounded in an underground lecture theatre. Over one hundred people headed for the fire exit.

The historians arrived at the exit and started debating the nature and history of the sign “Fire Exit”. The etymology of the word was considered, the style of lettering and its historical use. Some of the more portly historians got stuck in the doorway. History showed that not all fire exits lead to safety and a debate ensued.

Some art historians started considering the artistic probabilities of the sign, its use of colour and size. Perhaps the wording and meaning were constrained by the small size of the “canvas”, and a cultural identity formulated back in Classical Greece. The hidden iconography was considered and added to the debate.

A few archaeologists, but surprisingly few, were present to add their findings to the debate on the Roman army. Stuck in a crowd of historians they would not be drawn on the probable meaning of the sign “Fire Exit”. They were unwilling to jump to any conclusions about the sign, preferring to try and identify those who had been sitting near the sign and form them into a sort of “community archaeological group”. The ritual significance of the sign was discussed, and a conclusion reached that such signs were the focus for smoking and sexual rituals performed on the periphery of society.

There were just a couple of reconstruction archaeologists who voiced an opinion that it would be a good idea to walk through the “fire exit” since in their experience such signs generally lead to safety. However the few people that were listening to them started to ask them what they were doing at the conference and did Dungeons and Dragons have a future.

In fact the sign had been covered up by a large metal “Fire Exit Closed” sign, but this had been stolen by metal detectorists and so the exit was completely without context. After the event, in the bar the historians and the archaeologists both in their different ways believed that their views had been upheld, while the reconstruction archaeologists had started making lots of “Fire Exit” signs, all with the word “closed” written upon them.

This debate has considered the issues around written and artistic evidence, and even some of the issues around recreating the cavalry lance. But I still want to make a few points.

The Issus mosaic certainly shows Alexander holding a xyston, and other interesting aspects of Greek equipment. It’s an excellent heroic artistic composition, using a minimum of colour. And it would be churlish of me to concentrate on the artistic evidence for the use of the long lance when there are so many other, largely eastern, illustrations of lance armed cavalry from later periods. By chance I was looking at the Sasanian “battle mural” from the House of the Frescoes at Dura, which shows mounted lancers mirroring Sananian royal reliefs. AD 3rd century admittedly, but there is a body of artistic evidence showing the use of the long lance, generally two handed, although sometimes one handed like the huntsmen from the Mount Nebo mosaics, and without large shields.

I have little time for the suggestion that ancient riders could do what modern riders cannot. But I do have considerable time for debates about the type of horse and tack used in any period, and how we try and recreate the riders of the past. As with the reconstruction of equipment any reconstruction can never be a 100% true reproduction. The materials used may differ slightly, and the modern artisan will have a different artistic appreciation than his forebear. However the reproduction of an artefact can sometimes be useful in understanding the techniques used in its construction. And for me the major interest lies not so much in the reconstructed artefact itself, but how it is used and how it functioned. So reconstructing the kontos is good, trying to use it from horseback is more interesting.

After the Greek cavalry debate last summer I made an ash 2.7m tampered spear. At the head the spear shaft is 25mm diameter, and at its widest point 38mm diameter. The weight is 2.4 kg. I would compare this to my other “heavy” parallel-sided ash spear of 2.4m long, which weighs 1.5kg. This is my first foray into making tampered spear shafts, although I have many different types of tampered arrow shafts which all have differing characteristics. I enjoyed axing out the shaft, and it didn’t take long to get a good finish.

The tampered spear is a heavy killing weapon. The extra amount of wood increases the weight, and makes it harder to use. The tampering does help the balance to a degree, but it is the heavy weight that dictates the heft and use of the weapon. And this is a heavy weapon.

I find it hard to be definite about what is the most important feature of using weapons on horseback. The speed of the horse is certainly vital, and a whole host of variables must be taken into account. The cross section of the weapon will ensure penetration or a broad cutting action. And modern reconstructions of weapons and armour are very rarely made using the same techniques and materials as originals. They differ in hardness and sharpness. The same blade can be used by two individuals with greatly differing results, depending on their strength, the angle of cut, and the response of the target. Rather than just hitting the target with the blade, which often causes it to bounce off, the sword edge needs to be drawn deeper into the wound with a deliberate cutting motion. Generally targets will back away at the moment of impact, reducing the momentum of the weapon. Armour that may seem adequate generally does not protect the eye sockets, or the toes.

But generally I consider the speed of the horse, the weight of the weapon and muscle power behind it. Primarily riders really just need to concentrate on riding, letting their horse do the work. They need to deliver their weapon accurately on target, and if possible put some power behind the blow. The weight of the weapon will help, but a light sword used with power works as well as a heavy weapon with no muscle power, since the real force depends on the speed of the horse.

I agree with Paul that weapons of and over 4m are used without a large shield, but would suggest to reach their full potential you need to use them two handed. You can carry a 4m long lance in one hand. You can hit a target with it using one hand. But to use it well, accurately and powerfully you have to use two hands. Unless of course you are Alexander the killer of men, who can use one, and disdain a helmet.

But I have my doubts over the idea of a light sarissa moving over time to a heavier kontos with a larger diameter. The diameter of lance head sockets don’t vary that much, and while this may not account for some form of tampered shaft, I still find it hard to accept a large difference between the weapons. I appreciate some see the sarissa as having a Greek or Hellenistic origin, while others see the kontos as having a more eastern origin. But as a late Roman I am familiar with Procopius calling cavalry spears doru, as opposed to the smaller infantry spears he calls by a diminutive word, doration. Agathias calls the long cavalry lance the sarissa, while Maurice uses the word kontarion. But kontos, sarissa or even doru, it is weight and size that dictates function, and we are considering a long lance, used two handed for accuracy and power, without large shields. I’m now heading for the fire exit.