Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

I’ve ridden with a 15’ foot kontos for a season a few years ago. It’s easy enough to carry around but the longer the weapon the greater the “wobble” and the harder it is to use it accurately. And when you hit something the longer weapon breaks in more than one place, providing javelin shafts for half the file. :roll:

Bingo! As I've written before, I can't see cavalry "charging" with a fifteen or more foot lance / sarissa. If the infantry version drooped over the length how much more magnified that droop (or wobble as John describes)? I'd imagine twelve feet sees it out as a useful weapon.

The weapon breaking in "more than one place" sounds much like the "shivering" described in the sources.

[Paullus Scipio]

If we can summarise the debate so far, it would seem that the only consensus is that we don’t have much evidence, that the iconography is open to the usual criticisms and open to interpretation, and that conclusive results, as might be expected, cannot come from it.

So let us turn to literature, to see what additional evidence can be gleaned….

Ruben wrote:

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with your response!

Fair enough !.....

Connolly's solution is appealing in the ease with which it seemingly brings together the evidence, but the answer is unfortunately not as simple as he makes it out to be……..

Furthermore, Connolly simply ignores Asclepiodotus' measurement because he dates to the early 1st c. BC, despite the fact that Asclepiodotus is known to have drawn on solid earlier military manuals. It has been proven without a doubt that he drew in large part on Polybius for the portion of his manual dealing with the phalanx, and yet he declares that the sarissa was at most 12 cubits long, and at least 8; accounting for this requires a further examination of why his numbers differ from Polybius'. It is ironic, however that a figure of 12 Macedonian cubits reckoned by a Macedonian foot of 0.33 m does produce a length of 5.94 m or 19.5 feet matching Theophrastus' measurement quite nicely.

Yes, Connolly chooses to concentrate on those ‘who were there’ – Theophrastus for Philip/Alexander’s time, and Polybius for the end of the Macedonian phalanx era, and does not consider the later manuals of, Asclepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian, who all wrote in Roman times.( the former in the 1st C BC and the last two in Trajan and Hadrian’s reigns).These three, while differing in detail all apparently stem from Poseidonius – who in turn depended on the ‘lost’ sections of Polybius, as well as referring to earlier manuals such as Aeneas Tacticus, Cineas, Pyrrhus of Epirus and his son Alexander, Clearchus and others, but as you have pointed out, Asclepiodotus’ figures “not less than 10 cubits” and “no longer than 12 cubits” simply re-inforce a figure of 19.5 ft maximum and minimum over 16 ft.( as you point out). If Asclepiodotus differs from Polybius, it must be because he prefers some other source as more accurate than Polybius….. ( assuming he is not using a different cubit! )
BTW, it is Aelian (xii) (not Asclepiodotus) who says “not shorter than 8 cubits…and must not exceed such a length as may allow a man to wield it with ease.”….again we can’t be sure what size cubit he means….. certainly a man may not wield anything over 20 ft “with ease”. A little later, in a passage that seems to be taken almost word for word from Polybius (XIV), Aelian refers to 'sarrisae' being originally 16 cubits, but 'now' 14 cubits. He seems to be using two different sources in two different places - the latter clearly Polybius. This is presumably why Connolly does not refer to him for 'sarissa' length.

On balance, I think when all is allowed for, it is most probable that most sarissas were around 18-20 ft long – which Connolly has demonstrated by reconstruction, is an eminently practical length. ( which is not to say that experiments might not have been undertaken with other lengths, but this would appear to be the common length)…..

While I'm at it, I have a nit to pick with your using the Kinch tomb, as well. Firstly, the Kinch tomb spear cannot be accurately measured, because the head disappears behind the footman's shield, and where we would expect it to appear again between it and the man's body, there is damage to the wall. As such, the head could appear right where the shaft disappears, or it could appear right before the infantryman's body - we have no way of knowing, and that's a fairly significant difference in size, not even considering approximations based on artistic license.

Again, a fair point, but as I have emphasised, we are not trying to obtain accurate measurements anyway, since artists probably went by eye – all we can hope for is a reasonable approximation, and perhaps to be able to see what the artist was trying to illustrate. I think that this picture has enough similarities to the Alexander mosaic to say, as I did, that it is “consistent with” it, and a length of around 12 ft. ( And Connolly sees even more similarities). However, exclude it from our already slender ‘body of evidence’ if you wish….

I agree with you in large part. However, I have a problem when the entire categorization of a weapon like the xyston for a long span of time like the Hellenistic period is based on one author's measurement (Aelian, whom Connolly discounts when it comes to the numbers for the sarissa, but accepts for the xyston!) and one solid representation from the late 4th c. BC.

Perhaps because Connolly thinks the late-writing Aelian got it wrong ( considering earlier evidence) for the ‘sarissa’,(see above, quoting two different lengths, presumably from different sources, for length) but right for the ‘xyston’ (8-10 cubits: 3.95 m – 4.95 m/ 12 ft 10 ins- 16 ft ). Ascepiodotus says simply “long spears like those of the phalanx” – which may simply mean tapered with a large counterweight i.e. similar type, rather than similar length, or even proportionately long to other cavalry spears, as the ‘sarissa’ was proportionately longer than Infantry spears.

Firstly, I think you are mistaking the chest strap for a continuation of the horseman's spear - look at the strap on the horse riding towards him. Secondly, the plane doesn't align exactly with the sarissa - it is as much lower than the sarissa as the sarissa is lower than the foremost cavalryman's spear. I'm sorry, but I think the only tenable interpretation is the second.

I’ve looked in detail again, and I think the horse’s breast strap is the one angled up, which meets the ‘sarissa’/cavalry spear ( using interpretation 1 OR 2 ) in a “V”, therefore the horizontal line is the ‘sarissa’ or ‘cavalry spear’ - again it would be strange to have the 'breaststrap' exactly in line with 'sarissa'/cavalry spear. Secondly, on a blow-up, I can run a ruler along that horizontal line, so the alignment is darn close, especially on such a small piece, with a little ‘droop’ at each end – just like Connolly’s reconstructions. I would suggest either interpretation is equally likely…

I think the literature can shed some futher light too. Consider the passage you quoted from Asclepiodotus (I.3)

Now the cavalry which fights at close quarters uses, similarly, very heavy [or the heaviest] equipment, fully protecting both horses and men with armour,and employing long spears (makrois... tois dorasin) for which reason this arm of cavalry is also called doratophoron or xystophoron, or also thureophoron, when some bear very large oval (or lengthened) aspides for the purpose of protecting the horse as well

.

He is here describing the “close quarters” or Heavy Cavalry, and in fact describing various sub-types. Notice that only “some” of these Heavy Cavalry carry shields. Given the increased difficulty of handling with increasing length, we might reasonably expect that the shieldless Heavy cavalry would be the ‘xystophoroi’/Companion type and those with shields, ‘doratuphoroi’.
Now I realise that the passage is a tad ambiguous, and might be read so as to imply that “some” of the ‘xystophoroi’ carry shields, but I don’t think that is the natural meaning ( and why would some have shields and some not?). The subject of the sentence is the “close quarters” Heavy cavalry.

We can also compare this passage with the similar one of Arrian, also referring to the cavalry equipment:-

“Of these (the cavalry), some carry spears ( doru), some pikes ( kontos, xyston), some lances (longche/lanchea); others use only missiles…..Of the former variety some carry oblong shields and are called ‘thureophoroi’; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes, and these are called ‘doratuphoroi’ or ‘kontophoroi’, though some call them ‘xystophoroi’.”

This is completely clear, and tells us that ‘xystophoroi’ and ‘kontophoroi’ were shieldless.

I would suggest that if we look at all the evidence – remembering that no-where, as far as I can recall, do we hear of Companions/xystophoroi carrying shields in the literary sources; the practical experiences of Markle, Connolly and our own John Conyard; together with the iconograhic evidence such as it is, then the picture that emerges is that those who carried the longest spears – the 12 ft ‘xyston’ and ‘kontos’ were essentially armoured shieldless cavalry.

Postscript: We might also wonder why this type of cavalry (‘xystophoroi'/Companion type) disappear from the order of battle in late Hellenistic times. We have seen from examples in the literature that on impact with enemy man/horse, the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ sometimes/often snapped. Once shields began to be commonplace among Heavy Cavalry, and taking the impact of the ‘xyston’, we might expect breakage to occur even more often, and it is likely that ‘xyston’ armed cavalry became ever more ineffective, in comparison to ‘doru’/ shielded cavalry. Perhaps they lingered on because of the ‘Alexander’s Companions tradition’, but what was needed was a weapon strong enough and rigid enough to penetrate shields without breaking – hence the replacement of the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ with the larger, heavier ( but not longer!) ‘kontos’/bargepole which needed two hands to wield.

[Paralus]

We can also compare this passage with the similar one of Arrian, also referring to the cavalry equipment:-

“Of these (the cavalry), some carry spears ( doru), some pikes ( kontos, xyston), some lances (longche/lanchea); others use only missiles…..Of the former variety some carry oblong shields and are called ‘thureophoroi’; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes, and these are called ‘doratuphoroi’ or ‘kontophoroi’, though some call them ‘xystophoroi’.”

Yet again no reference: and it is usually myself that is so picked upon for this!

I'd love to see the Greek: whose translation are you using?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Yet again no reference: and it is usually myself that is so picked upon for this!

Sorry......I thought you (and everyone else following this) knew that we were referring to the three very similar Hellenistic Tactical manuals that have come to us via Aelian, Asclepiodotus and Arrian. ( see above).The full reference is Arrian "Ars Tactica" IV.

My copy I've had in typescript form for 35 years...... and the name of the translator is not on the typescript! I think it was done by an anonymous Classics professor at Birmingham University (U.K.), and I believe the translation to be a very good one, especially regarding technical terms. Sorry, don't have the Greek ( back then you needed very special equipment to reproduce Greek - this was manual typewriter days !! )

[Paralus]

My copy I've had in typescript form for 35 years...... and the name of the translator is not on the typescript! I think it was done by an anonymous Classics professor at Birmingham University (U.K.), and I believe the translation to be a very good one, especially regarding technical terms. Sorry, don't have the Greek ( back then you needed very special equipment to reproduce Greek - this was manual typewriter days !! )

As I well know. And, so, you are certian of the Greek for those bracketed terms (doru, xyston, et al)? You see, Diodorus also accords Eudamus two troops of "selected lancers" (xustophoron) at Paraetecene (19.27.2). Peithon's "archers and lancers are not described as such. Yet again Diodorus indicates those armed as such.

Perhaps one should start a search of the use of the word in Diodorus??

It is also worth noting that Borel Noguera, as noted in the Hatzopoulos / Juhel paper (n 42, p113), has demonstrated that the term sarissa was a general term in the Macedonian language for “lance” and was not used to exclusively denote the infantry pike.

..that idea is based on the fact that there were Macedonian cavalry 'sarissaphoroi'/pike carriers, who clearly weren't wielding 18 foot pikes or anything close to that (contra Markle's views)...but it is equally possible that to the slangy Greek/Makedones, it was merely a nickname for the Macedonian light cavalry properly called 'Prodromoi' who like their Macedonian heavy brethren, were armed with a 12ft 'xyston'......and that technically the true 'sarissa' was the 18-19 ft infantry pike.

You've read the paper? I'd enjoy reciprocal library rights...

[D B Campbell]

Sorry, don't have the Greek ( back then you needed very special equipment to reproduce Greek - this was manual typewriter days !! )

I well remember acquiring a Greek alphabet daisy wheel for my Brother typewriter. But then you also needed a template, mapping the keyboard keys to the Greek letters. Nightmare!

[PMBardunias]

Anyone have access to this?

Four Hellenistic Funerary Stelae from Gephyra, Macedonia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author(s): Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos 1 | Pierre Juhel 2
doi: 10.3764/aja.113.3.423
American Journal of Archaeology
Print ISSN: 0002-9114
Volume: 113 | Issue: 3
Cover date: July 2009
Page(s): 423-437

Abstract
The present article analyzes four Hellenistic funerary stelae from the modern village of Gephyra on the Axios River, the site of the ancient city Herakleia. The style of the monuments and the letter forms of the inscriptions allow us to establish their relative chronology and to date them to the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century B.C.E.; our reconstruction of the stemma of the persons named in the inscriptions suggests that they may belong to the same family. The two stelae with reliefs provide valuable information about the armament and equipment of cavalry and infantry in Hellenistic Macedonia. For example, the horseman carries a shield, a detail of paramount importance, since it suggests an early date for the introduction of the cavalry shield in Greece, sometime prior to Pyrrhus' return from his western expedition. The offensive and defensive weapons of the footman strengthen previous conclusions that the heavily armed Macedonian infantry was equipped according to specific standards dictated by rank.

[Paralus]

I have ineed. It's on your email.

Reciprocal library rights Paul B: consider it repayment for the "Beer" paper!

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Therefore, at some stage in Polybios’ reckoning, the sarissa was 16 cubits long but, by the time of his writing, had been reduced to 14. Just when the sarissa reached 16 cubits is the thing. It is often assumed that in the years following Alexander’s death that the sarissa – in something akin to an arms race – lengthened due to sarissa-armed phalanxes engaging one another. I still think this makes sense and that eventually, in Greece where such confrontations would appear to be less common (the Spartans, for example, not adopting the formation until the time of Sellasia), it came back to a more manageable length?

That is plausible perhaps, and one would think that experiments with length may well have taken place, especially among Greek Armies trying to counter Macedonian dominance. It is curious that seemingly Polybius alone should mention “16 cubits” – on the face of it a rather unlikely length, so much so that later writers avoided this figure ( see above previous posts) evidently preferring other writers. So what made Polybius think that in a bygone age the ‘sarissa’ had been of such a length ?

He clearly indicates that there had been a change in sarissa length: that he has the “original” correct is another matter. To Polybios there had clearly been a change in length. Because he posits the longer length before his time we are to discard it as unreliable. Are we then to posit that when Polybios relates matters technical earlier than his own time he is not to be relied upon? Like the “ancestral laws” of Sparta’s Lycurgus, it is easy to assume that sarissa lengths being longer within living memory were the original version. Particularly in an age minus any decent access to recorded information.

I believe the answer lies in this anecdote of Polyaenus [Stratagems II.29]:-

“At the siege of (Macedonian) Edessa, [by Pyrrhus in 273 BC] when a breach was made in the walls, the spear-men, whose spears were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line not to use their weapons, but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. When their spears were seized in this way, the men retreated; but the second rank, pressing upon them, either took them prisoner, or killed them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus, the long and formidable sarissa was rendered useless, and became rather an encumbrance, than a dangerous weapon.”

Polyaenus is obviously drawing on an earlier history for this incident – and I think it possible that this unknown history is the source for Polybius’ belief that earlier Macedonian ‘sarissae’ had been 16 cubits.
However, the point of the anecdote is to contrast the ‘shorter’ spears ( sarissae? ) of the Epirotes with the ‘longer’ ones of the Macedonians, and it is easy to see how exaggeration may well have crept in to heighten the contrast. Another possibility is that this might be correct, and an example of the ‘experimentation’ in the generation or two after Alexander that you have postulated. Certainly modern experiments would seem to demonstrate that “16 cubits”/25 ft is too long, heavy, and cumbersome to be effective……

The “sainted” Conolly aside, we seem only to be able to “trust” Polybios when he accords with your own views.

Clearly untrue since I was simply reporting Connolly’s views as set out in the JRMES article.
However, I would agree with him that a 25 ft or more long ‘sarissa’ is just not practical or feasible, and the weight of evidence is against it, but see above. Which is not to say that Polybius didn't certainly believe that this was so. But Polybius, reliable as he is and faithfully passing on earlier information, is also capable of being mistaken.
Nor do I regard Connolly as “sainted” – he has made mistakes, some of which I have drawn attention to on this forum, as do we all. However his views are always worth reading, and anyone studying Greek and Roman warfare will find his work indispensable.

What is interesting is that it is the cavalry guard only who are xystophoroi and that the hetairoi, who are described separately, are not carrying the xyston as Diodorus clearly makes the distinction. One then wonders whether the ile basilikos was the only troop of the Comapanion Cavalry who carried the xyston or whether its use had been restricted, by the time of Gaza, to the cavalry guard. Given the imitatio Alexandri of the Diadochoi one is tempted to think the former.

Further to my earlier comments on this, I think the reason Diodorus doesn’t bother to mention the armament of the “Companions” is obvious. Philip and Alexander’s “Companions” pioneered the use of armoured cavalry armed with the ‘xyston’, and the term ‘companion’ and ‘xystophoroi’ are synonyms for this type of cavalry, with the distinction being that ‘xystophoroi’ are cavalry ‘armed like companions’. Thus the Guard Cavalry were armed 'like companions, as xystophoroi'. To say something akin to “the Companions were armed as Companions/xystophoroi” would therefore be a clumsy redundancy – readers would know from the term “Companions” how they were armed, and it would only be necessary to mention their armament if it differed from the norm. D

[MeinPanzer]

I’m afraid that what Paul Mac has written above is a clear misrepresentation of the passage in Polybios (which, I note, is not referenced). Polybios (18.29.1-2) clearly states that the length of the sarissa had altered:

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it…

I'd totally forgotten that Polybius mentions explicitly that the sarissa changed in length! Thank for posting it.

At Gaza, in 312, Demetrius’ battle order is described in detail (pity we do not get the same for Ptolemy / Seleucus). The cavalry, on Demetrius’ left wing, is described down to the troop. Here we clearly have a corps of “xystophoroi” as this is the word Diodorus uses to describe them. In the Loeb this is translated as below (19.82.2-3):

As an advanced guard he drew up three troops of cavalry and the same number as guards on the flank, and in addition to these and stationed separately outside the wing, three troops of Tarentines; thus those that were drawn up about his person amounted to five hundred horsemen armed with the lance and one hundred Tarentines. Next he posted those of the cavalry who were called the Companions, eight hundred in number, and after them no less than fifteen hundred horsemen of all kinds…

The troops arranged about Demetrius are his guard (aside from the Tarentines) and are xystophoroi. Devine (Diodorus’ Account of the Battle of Gaza, ACTA Classical 29, 1984) translates this as “sarissaphoroi”. Clearly, though, Diodorus calls them xystophoroi. What is interesting is that it is the cavalry guard only who are xystophoroi and that the hetairoi, who are described separately, are not carrying the xyston as Diodorus clearly makes the distinction. One then wonders whether the ile basilikos was the only troop of the Comapanion Cavalry who carried the xyston or whether its use had been restricted, by the time of Gaza, to the cavalry guard. Given the imitatio Alexandri of the Diadochoi one is tempted to think the former.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Michael. Diodorus is simply differentiating between the different squadrons by some distinguishing factor - the Tarentines have their ethnic title, and the Companions their unit title, and so it seems that lacking any other title for the other unit he simply noted their armament.

It is not a "misrepresentation" at all ! We may trust Polybius for his own day, but hardly for whatever story he had heard about the 'original design' when we have the contemporary Theophrastus. I agree with Connolly here....to refer to Polybius' obviously unreliable '16 cubits originally' simply causes un-necessary confusion and 'muddies the waters' to no end...or rather, just for mischief !

Why must we assume that Polybius' statement is based on a "story" about the "original design," or that he is even referring to Theophrastus' day? At least 150 years separate the times when Theophrastus and Polybius were writing, so the sarissa could have undergone varied changes in that span, and Polybius could be referring to any point in between. Why is the assertion of Polybius, a man clearly well-read in military matters, that the sarissa was once 16 cubits unreliable? This smacks of cherrypicking the evidence.

That would certainly be a reasonable hypothesis - but there is no evidence at all for it, or for Polybius' "16 cubits", and against the idea is Theophrastus, and the fact that when the 'sarissa/pike' was revived in late mediaeval/renaissance times, it's maximum length was not much more than 20 feet......

No evidence at all for it... other than the statement of a well-informed Hellenistic military officer, and the testimony of later military manuals that drew from those of the early Hellenistic period.

Ruben, I think the first image shows a rider riding with his right hand, and fighting with his left, perhaps for artistic reasons. I would suggest he’s holding his shield with a central grip, using his reins in the same hand. Perhaps even pushing the horses head over using the shield. The spear looks light and easy to use, even when held towards the butt.

I should have noted this before, but that is actually an inverted image because it was a painting made on the outside of a glass bowl but intended to be seen from the inside while drinking).

Yes, Connolly chooses to concentrate on those ‘who were there’ – Theophrastus for Philip/Alexander’s time, and Polybius for the end of the Macedonian phalanx era, and does not consider the later manuals of, Asclepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian, who all wrote in Roman times.( the former in the 1st C BC and the last two in Trajan and Hadrian’s reigns).These three, while differing in detail all apparently stem from Poseidonius – who in turn depended on the ‘lost’ sections of Polybius, as well as referring to earlier manuals such as Aeneas Tacticus, Cineas, Pyrrhus of Epirus and his son Alexander, Clearchus and others,

And Connolly in dealing foremost with Theophrastus and Polybius is making a good start of his discussion, as any debate over the length of the sarissa must invariably begin with our most reliable sources. That doesn't mean, however, that the evidence of the military manuals can just be discarded because it is inconvenient. Despite the convenient dismissal that these sources are "late," as you yourself state, it is well-known that they drew directly or indirectly from earlier Hellenistic manuals, and this has been shown from direct comparison before. Any examination which hopes to come to a full conclusion must take into account all evidence, no matter how difficult that may be, and Connolly shows poor scholarship in not doing so.

but as you have pointed out, Asclepiodotus’ figures “not less than 10 cubits” and “no longer than 12 cubits” simply re-inforce a figure of 19.5 ft maximum and minimum over 16 ft.( as you point out). If Asclepiodotus differs from Polybius, it must be because he prefers some other source as more accurate than Polybius….. ( assuming he is not using a different cubit! )

In other words, the simple figure of 19 feet is not the solution to the sarissa debate that Connolly states that it is. All our evidence points to there being a range of lengths in use both at any particular point in time and throughout the Hellenistic period: Theophrastus gives an upper limit, implying that there were smaller sarissae in use; Polybius acknowledges that the sarissa had shortened somewhat to reach the length of his day; and the authors of the military manuals give various maximum and minimum figures for sarissa lengths which differ again.

BTW, it is Aelian (not Asclepiodotus) who says “not shorter than 8 cubits…and must not exceed such a length as may allow a man to wield it with ease.”….again we can’t be sure what size cubit he means….. certainly a man may not wield anything over 20 ft “with ease”

My mistake on the minimum number given by Asclepiodotus. However, there can be almost no doubt that the military manuals were using the Macedonian cubit.

Again, a fair point, but as I have emphasised, we are not trying to obtain accurate measurements anyway, since artists probably went by eye – all we can hope for is a reasonable approximation, and perhaps to be able to see what the artist was trying to illustrate. I think that this picture has enough similarities to the Alexander mosaic to say, as I did, that it is “consistent with” it, and a length of around 12 ft. ( And Connolly sees even more similarities). However, exclude it from our already slender ‘body of evidence’ if you wish….

And going by this "reasonable approximation," most of the images I posted compare very well with the Kinch tomb, and thus their spears are consisted with a length of 12 feet.

Perhaps because Connolly thinks the late-writing Aelian got it wrong ( considering earlier evidence) for the ‘sarissa’, but right for the ‘xyston’ (8-10 cubits: 3.95 m – 4.95 m/ 12 ft 10 ins- 16 ft ). Ascepiodotus says simply “long spears like those of the phalanx” – which may simply mean tapered with a large counterweight i.e. similar type, rather than similar length, or even proportionately long to other cavalry spears, as the ‘sarissa’ was proportionately longer than Infantry spears.

In other words, he accepts the evidence when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't without further explanation. That's just plain bad scholarship.

I’ve looked in detail again, and I think the horse’s breast strap is the one angled up, which meets the ‘sarissa’/cavalry spear ( using interpretation 1 OR 2 ) in a “V”, therefore the horizontal line is the ‘sarissa’ or ‘cavalry spear’ - again it would be strange to have the 'breaststrap' exactly in line with 'sarissa'/cavalry spear. Secondly, on a blow-up, I can run a ruler along that horizontal line, so the alignment is darn close, especially on such a small piece, with a little ‘droop’ at each end – just like Connolly’s reconstructions. I would suggest either interpretation is equally likely…

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on these points. Unless you ascribe significant sag to the sarissa, it just doesn't line up like you want it to. Whether you draw a line only from the portion in front of the hand, or averaging the angle of the whole sarissa, it is still as far off from the shaft in front of the rear cavalry as it is from the spear of the foremost cavalryman. Not to mention that if we take that as the sarissa, the rearmost cavalryman simply wouldn't have a spear.

I think the literature can shed some futher light too. Consider the passage you quoted from Asclepiodotus (I.3)

Now the cavalry which fights at close quarters uses, similarly, very heavy [or the heaviest] equipment, fully protecting both horses and men with armour,and employing long spears (makrois... tois dorasin) for which reason this arm of cavalry is also called doratophoron or xystophoron, or also thureophoron, when some bear very large oval (or lengthened) aspides for the purpose of protecting the horse as well

He is here describing the “close quarters” or Heavy Cavalry, and in fact describing various sub-types. Notice that only “some” of these Heavy Cavalry carry shields. Given the increased difficulty of handling with increasing length, we might reasonably expect that the shieldless Heavy cavalry would be the ‘xystophoroi’/Companion type and those with shields, ‘doratuphoroi’.
Now I realise that the passage is a tad ambiguous, and might be read so as to imply that “some” of the ‘xystophoroi’ carry shields, but I don’t think that is the natural meaning ( and why would some have shields and some not?). The subject of the sentence is the “close quarters” Heavy cavalry.

We can also compare this passage with the similar one of Arrian, also referring to the cavalry equipment:-

“Of these (the cavalry), some carry spears ( doru), some pikes ( kontos, xyston), some lances (longche/lanchea); others use only missiles…..Of the former variety some carry oblong shields and are called ‘thureophoroi’; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes, and these are called ‘doratuphoroi’ or ‘kontophoroi’, though some call them ‘xystophoroi’.”

This is completely clear, and tells us that ‘xystophoroi’ and ‘kontophoroi’ were shieldless.

Paul, your abbreviated translation here is not representative of the meaning of the passage, which is much more ambiguous than you make it out to be. Firstly, Arrian divides the cavalry up into kataphraktoi and aphraktoi, a division which is entirely different from that of Asclepiodotus. Then he goes on to write this of the aphraktoi (translated directly from the Greek, 4.2-3):

Of these (the aphraktoi), some are doratophoroi or kontophoroi or longchophoroi, and others are only mounted akrobolistai. The doratophoroi approaching the ranks of the enemy and fighting them off with dorata or kontoi thrusting out in the assault like the Alans and the Sauromatians...

No reference is made to the xyston. Then, Arrian refers back to the kataphraktoi (4.4-5):

And of the former category (the kataphraktoi), some also bear the thureos and are called thureophoroi, and some without these (shields) fight only with dorata and kontoi, who indeed also are called by themselves doratophoroi or kontophoroi, and under which are the xystophoroi.

All he is saying is that those without shields are called only by the name of their primary weapon - he's making no commentary on the primary weapon of those thureophoroi. All that we can take from this about the armament of the thureophoroi is implicitly that they carried either dorata, kontoi, or xysta. So, Asclepiodotus and Arrian are basically in agreement (though Arrian's binary distinction of "kataphraktos/aphraktos" is not made so clearly by Asclepiodotus) that the heavily armed, close-combat cavalry are broken down into a few groups:

1. Thureophoroi - so named because they carried shields.
2. Doratophoroi - so named because they only carried dorata.
3. Kontophoroi - so named because they only carried kontoi.
4. Xystophoroi -so named because they only carried xysta.

No comment is made on the main weapon of the thureophoroi.

So, we basically come back to the archaeological record.

[Paralus]

I believe the answer lies in this anecdote of Polyaenus [Stratagems II.29]:-

“At the siege of (Macedonian) Edessa, [by Pyrrhus in 273 BC] when a breach was made in the walls, the spear-men, whose spears were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line not to use their weapons, but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. When their spears were seized in this way, the men retreated; but the second rank, pressing upon them, either took them prisoner, or killed them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus, the long and formidable sarissa was rendered useless, and became rather an encumbrance, than a dangerous weapon.”

Polyaenus is obviously drawing on an earlier history for this incident – and I think it possible that this unknown history is the source for Polybius’ belief that earlier Macedonian ‘sarissae’ had been 16 cubits.
However, the point of the anecdote is to contrast the ‘shorter’ spears ( sarissae? ) of the Epirotes with the ‘longer’ ones of the Macedonians, and it is easy to see how exaggeration may well have crept in to heighten the contrast. Another possibility is that this might be correct, and an example of the ‘experimentation’ in the generation or two after Alexander that you have postulated. Certainly modern experiments would seem to demonstrate that “16 cubits”/25 ft is too long, heavy, and cumbersome to be effective……

That's where it was. I knew there was evidence for the 23' -25' long sarissa (depending upon cubit) outside of Polybios.

I don't doubt the source material in that such existed. Again, I feel it a logical arms progression given sarissa armed phalanxes combating one another. As I say, to Polybios this lenght might well have appeared the "original" length. It is only speculation but it may well have been Philip V's (or even Doson's) idea to pare it back some.

Polybios was well read and will have known his Thucydides, Xenophon, Callisthenes, Ephorus and so on. That he took the time to root out Theophrastus' "Enquiries into Plants" to determine an original sarissa lenght I'm not so certain. Lenghts of same may not have been noted in the extant (to Polybios) historical material - which he did concern himself with.

Even so, we now have two notations of sarissae of lengths in the 24' range and Theophrastus' aside of 17.5-19'. I'd be inclined to go with the source material and posit an incrementation, from Philip II and Alexander's day, from 18 odd feet to 24 and then back, somewhat before Polybios' writings ("in practice is reduced..."), to some 20 odd feet.

[Paralus]

I’m afraid that what Paul Mac has written above is a clear misrepresentation of the passage in Polybios (which, I note, is not referenced). Polybios (18.29.1-2) clearly states that the length of the sarissa had altered:

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it…

I'd totally forgotten that Polybius mentions explicitly that the sarissa changed in length! Thank for posting it.

No thanks needed… unreliable though it might seem to some…

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Michael. Diodorus is simply differentiating between the different squadrons by some distinguishing factor - the Tarentines have their ethnic title, and the Companions their unit title, and so it seems that lacking any other title for the other unit he simply noted their armament.

That’s likely true. It seems a method of Diodorus in his battle descriptions.

It is not a "misrepresentation" at all ! We may trust Polybius for his own day, but hardly for whatever story he had heard about the 'original design' when we have the contemporary Theophrastus. I agree with Connolly here....to refer to Polybius' obviously unreliable '16 cubits originally' simply causes un-necessary confusion and 'muddies the waters' to no end...or rather, just for mischief !

Why must we assume that Polybius' statement is based on a "story" about the "original design," or that he is even referring to Theophrastus' day? At least 150 years separate the times when Theophrastus and Polybius were writing, so the sarissa could have undergone varied changes in that span, and Polybius could be referring to any point in between. Why is the assertion of Polybius, a man clearly well-read in military matters, that the sarissa was once 16 cubits unreliable? This smacks of cherrypicking the evidence.

Indeed. Polybios, as I recall, was a source whom we could clearly trust on the “Macedonian phalanx: why such depth” thread. This even though he based his discussion of Alexander’s phalanx at Issos on a phalanx some 150 years (or more) later than Alexander’s.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

I'd totally forgotten that Polybius mentions explicitly that the sarissa changed in length! Thank for posting it.

..but he says this on the assumption that the “original design” was “16 cubits”! If we accept the evidence of Theophrastus, it was not. I believe that evidence is to be preferred to that of the unknown author of the Polyaenus anecdote, with its quite possibly exaggerated length ( see previous). Furthermore, even though Polybius evidently believed the “original design” ( and probably wrongly) was “16 cubits” he adds “and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen;” ….is he not saying that the ‘original design’ is impractical, hence "in practice 14 cubits"?

Why must we assume that Polybius' statement is based on a "story" about the "original design," or that he is even referring to Theophrastus' day? At least 150 years separate the times when Theophrastus and Polybius were writing, so the sarissa could have undergone varied changes in that span, and Polybius could be referring to any point in between.

Because he says “original design” which must mean that of Philip/Alexander’s day.

Why is the assertion of Polybius, a man clearly well-read in military matters, that the sarissa was once 16 cubits unreliable? This smacks of cherrypicking the evidence.

Because Polybius is not omniscient ( nor is anyone, of course). Certainly, as I wrote previously, Polybius may have believed on the basis of the anonymous author also used by Polyaenus for his anecdote, or something similar, that the “original design” was 16 cubits, but as Paralus has pointed out, he was almost certainly unaware of Theophrastus’ work, well-read though he may have been. That he himself did not believe that a 16 cubit ‘sarissa’ was practical is implied from his words.

Nor is it ‘cherrypicking’ evidence to ‘weigh it up’ and consider evidence critically. Obviously, even within a single author, some evidence is more reliable than others. For example, when Polybius says that ‘sarissae’ of his own day were 14 cubits, that, being the evidence of his own experience, may be seen as reliable. When he talks of the ‘original design’ some 150 years earlier, he is clearly drawing on someone else, and it is only as reliable as that someone else – most today would prefer the contemporary evidence of Theophrastus….and that is precisely what Connolly has done.

No evidence at all for it... other than the statement of a well-informed Hellenistic military officer, and the testimony of later military manuals that drew from those of the early Hellenistic period.

As must be plain, ‘well-informed’ isn’t omniscient, and those later manuals, written long after the last ‘Sarissaphoroi’ had gone, while relying on earlier works all shy away from Polybius’ “16 cubits”. Aelian dutifully quotes Polybius,( 16 cubits originally, but in practice 14 cubits) but also says minimum 8 cubits, and not to exceed a length which will allow a man to wield it with ease. Arrian arbitrarily changed “16 cubits” to “16 feet”. Asclepiodotus says 10-12 cubits, consistent with Theophrastus for the early sarissa and Polybius for the late one. Clearly all, including Polybius, recognised there was something wrong with a pike 16 cubits/25ft/ 7.7 m long! And mediaeval/Renaissance experience and modern reconstructions entirely support this.

There can be little doubt that initially and at the end of the period, the sarissa was between 18-20 ft long, and that this was its optimum length. All there really is for any longer length in between times is the source of Polyaenus’ anecdote, likely seen by Polybius and quite possibly an exaggeration. Many have postulated, like Paralus, that experimentation with increased lengths took place, and that is certainly possible, even likely – how else would the writers/tacticians know what was “practical” ? However, like Connolly, I am inclined to think that 18-20 ft was the common length for armies taking the field, though I don’t doubt there was some small variety between armies and perhaps times.

And Connolly in dealing foremost with Theophrastus and Polybius is making a good start of his discussion, as any debate over the length of the sarissa must invariably begin with our most reliable sources. That doesn't mean, however, that the evidence of the military manuals can just be discarded because it is inconvenient. Despite the convenient dismissal that these sources are "late," as you yourself state, it is well-known that they drew directly or indirectly from earlier Hellenistic manuals, and this has been shown from direct comparison before. Any examination which hopes to come to a full conclusion must take into account all evidence, no matter how difficult that may be, and Connolly shows poor scholarship in not doing so.

In other words, the simple figure of 19 feet is not the solution to the sarissa debate that Connolly states that it is. All our evidence points to there being a range of lengths in use both at any particular point in time and throughout the Hellenistic period: Theophrastus gives an upper limit, implying that there were smaller sarissae in use; Polybius acknowledges that the sarissa had shortened somewhat to reach the length of his day; and the authors of the military manuals give various maximum and minimum figures for sarissa lengths which differ again…… In other words, he accepts the evidence when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't without further explanation. That's just plain bad scholarship.

That is rather harsh on Connolly. He will have been precluded from setting out and discussing in full every source and why he felt them more or less reliable for reasons of space in the journal, so concentrates on those sources he does believe reliable. Furthermore he does mention ALL sources and briefly explains why he does not consider the late sources in detail, referring the reader to an article by J. Mixter which does. Connolly’s article is not primarily about the length of the sarissa and is more concerned with the practicalities of reconstruction than weighing up the sources.

And going by this "reasonable approximation," most of the images I posted compare very well with the Kinch tomb, and thus their spears are consisted with a length of 12 feet.

That is simply a flat re-statement of your position, which I don’t agree with, for reasons I set out earlier ( see previous posts). The reader must look and decide for himself.
Were you to assert that shielded ‘lancers’ armed with an 8-9 ft ‘Doru’ fought at close quarters/hand-to-hand, I would have no trouble in entirely agreeing with you. However it seems clear to me that the weight of all the evidence together does not support shielded cavalry wielding 12 ft ‘xystoi/kontoi’, especially the Hellenistic manuals – and again the modern experience of Markle, Connolly,Conyard, and I’m willing to bet, anyone else supports this view.

Firstly, Arrian divides the cavalry up into kataphraktoi and aphraktoi, a division which is entirely different from that of Asclepiodotus.

‘kataphraktoi’( lit :covered in) simply means armoured cavalry, (not to be be confused with ‘cataphracts’ as a specific sub-type, though confusion creeps in because our Roman writers were more familiar with 'cataphracts' as fully armoured from head to toe types, rather than the Macedonian and early Hellenistic meaning of just 'armoured'); and ‘aphraktoi’ (lit:uncovered) unarmoured cavalry. Ascepiodotus too refers to “the cavalry which fights at close quarters uses a very heavy equipment fully protecting both horses and men with defensive armour” – clearly the same as Arrian’s ‘kataphraktoi’. His “branch that fights at long range” and the “intermediate variety” (that do both) are differently categorised, but that is simply so he can have a three-fold division, as for the infantry.

Aelian says, similarly to Arrian:
“(the cavalry) are divided into ‘kataphraktoi’ and those more lightly armed.The ‘kataphraktoi’ are completely armed and so are their horses.The other kinds of cavalry are lancers (doratuphoroi) and those armed with missile weapons. The lancers are those who join in close combat with the enemy, and charge with their pikes, or lances ( doru). Of these, some carry shields and are called ‘shield carriers’(thureophoroi); others use lances only ( doru) without the encumbrance of shields; these are properly called lancers ( dorutophoroi) and by some they are called ‘pikemen’ ( xystophoroi)……

Again, it is quite clear that some lancers/close quarters fighters are shielded, and some - those "properly called" 'dorutophoroi/xystophoroi’ do not carry shields.
Note also that ‘xyston’ is a word used by Makedones for the long 12-15 ft lance whereas Greeks tended to use the more generic ‘doru’( great spear).

Of these (the aphraktoi), some are doratophoroi or kontophoroi or longchophoroi, and others are only mounted akrobolistai. The doratophoroi approaching the ranks of the enemy and fighting them off with dorata or kontoi thrusting out in the assault like the Alans and the Sauromatians...


No reference is made to the xyston. Then, Arrian refers back to the kataphraktoi (4.4-5):


And of the former category (the kataphraktoi), some also bear the 'thureo's and are called 'thureophoroi', and some without these (shields) fight only with dorata and kontoi, who indeed also are called by themselves doratophoroi or kontophoroi, and under which are the xystophoroi.

I think this is a somewhat clumsy translation – compare the same piece I earlier posted…

"Of the former variety some carry oblong shields and are called ‘thureophoroi’; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes, and these are called ‘doratuphoroi’ or ‘kontophoroi’, though some call them ‘xystophoroi’.”

All he is saying is that those without shields are called only by the name of their primary weapon

I don’t believe that is the natural meaning at all. I think it is fairly clear that they fight ONLY with doru/xyston, and no shield, in both Arrian and Aelian.

- he's making no commentary on the primary weapon of those thureophoroi. All that we can take from this about the armament of the thureophoroi is implicitly that they carried either dorata, kontoi, or xysta.

I don’t think that is the case at all. It is clear that the ‘Doru’ (Gk) or ‘xyston’ (mak) and ‘kontos’ armed cavalry are un-shielded. ( i.e. long-lance - 12-15 ft- armed cavalry are unshielded - any confusion arises over the use of the more generic Greek word 'doru')

So, Asclepiodotus and Arrian are basically in agreement (though Arrian's binary distinction of "kataphraktos/aphraktos" is not made so clearly by Asclepiodotus) that the heavily armed, close-combat cavalry are broken down into a few groups:

And indeed Aelian……

1. Thureophoroi - so named because they carried shields.

Yes, armoured close-quarter, shielded cavalry

2. Doratophoroi - so named because they only carried dorata.
3. Kontophoroi - so named because they only carried kontoi.
4. Xystophoroi -so named because they only carried xysta.

Correct – the last three sub-categories of close-quarter armoured cavalry are shieldless. The differences between the sources, drawing from a probable common Hellenistic source are that Arrian ‘updates’ the source – leaving out for example details of obsolete weaponry such as chariotry and elephants, and including details of Roman practice e.g. that the shielded cavalry are 'lanchea' armed.

No comment is made on the main weapon of the thureophoroi.

….except Arrian’s ‘lanchea’ – and if the long-lanced cavalry are shieldless, it follows that shielded cavalry armed with generic ‘doru’ are probably carrying the 8-9 ft variety, remembering that ‘xyston’ was not a common Greek term ( being Macedonian) and that the ‘generic ‘doru’ - covering both - is likely to have been used by greek writers.

I don't believe our views are terribly far apart, other than some disagreement over shielded cavalry carrying long lances - you think they did, and I think not......but I do believe the evidence, including that of modern reconstructions, tends to favour the view that long-lanced armoured cavalry were unshielded.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Indeed. Polybios, as I recall, was a source whom we could clearly trust on the “Macedonian phalanx: why such depth” thread. This even though he based his discussion of Alexander’s phalanx at Issos on a phalanx some 150 years (or more) later than Alexander’s.

Ah,ah,aaa...H ! Naughty ! You are being most disingenuous in your continued personal 'digs'! :evil:

It would be a naive scholar who took everything that Polybius wrote at face value, and of equal merit ( see my previous post for an example). There have been plenty of scholarly articles critical of Polybius' treatment of Kallisthenes, as you of all people should know ! It is not Polybius' comments, 150 years later, that are valuable clues - but rather what he quotes of the contemporary, but now lost, work of Kallisthenes........ though of course Polybius' personal knowledge of Phalanx warfare also helps.

Consider the legal cliche ;" Evidence is weighed, not counted!" Do not make the mistake of thinking all evidence is equal, for it is clearly not, even within a single source !! Or, to quote another cliche; "Some (pieces of evidence) are more equal than others".

[Paralus]

Furthermore, even though Polybius evidently believed the “original design” ( and probably wrongly) was “16 cubits”

I've addressed the notion of original earlier. You would have it that Polybios “original design” must mean that of Philip/Alexander’s day. I disagree: there is no "must" as he may mean his conception of the original design.

he adds “and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen;” ….is he not saying that the ‘original design’ is impractical, hence "in practice 14 cubits"?

Not necessarily. All he is saying is that a fourteen cubit sarissa had, through use, become the norm by his time. This does not mean that a preference for fourteen cubits, in his time, must render sixteen “impractical”. You choose your adjectives to make your point: 10,12 and 14 cubits are “practical” and 16 is plainly “impractical” and therefore to be dismissed as ahistorical. That Polybios “implies” this “impractical” nature is your reading of his words.

The dismissal of the Polyaenus evidence is not so simple either. As you do not know the source of the Polyaenus passage, as you've stated, one might expect you to be in less of an unseemly rush to dismiss it. For all we know it may well have come from Hieronymus – directly or via an intermediary (possibly Agatharchides). Certainly they are the common views for Diodorus 18-20 and, even more certainly, Plutarch cites Hieronymus in his “Pyrrhus”.

Ah,ah,aaa...H ! Naughty ! You are being most disingenuous in your continued personal 'digs'! :evil:

It appears that I shall have to take to using “emoticons” so as to stop you taking words preciously to heart: insert a "Jeez Louise" emoticon here (the site doesn't have one)

Indeed. Polybios, as I recall, was a source whom we could clearly trust on the “Macedonian phalanx: why such depth” thread. This even though he based his discussion of Alexander’s phalanx at Issos on a phalanx some 150 years (or more) later than Alexander’s. :wink:

They do not have one for "tongue planted firmly in cheek" so the not totally germane "wink" will have to suffice.

It would seem the use of the words "continued personal digs" indicates your non acceptance of my word on the previous "dig". "Ironic / light hearted aside" does not exist either. Que sera sera.