Macedonian Sarrisa

[Hypaspist]

Sean,
I played with the Swiss Pikes several weeks ! After I got them last year roll: I kind of get the feeling that the Sarrisa was used in a Pushing Motion ( I guess Like the Push Of Pike ) and that the need for individual dexterity was not as important .. ? Maybe ?
Michael Pechacek Sr

[Johnny Shumate]

Michael,
Do you have original Swiss pikes? Ones made in the 15th-16th century? Did they cost a blue fortune..?! Sounds interesting!
Johnny

[Hypaspist]

Johnny,
yes Original Pikes .. they are late 1400s points remounted as needed by the Luzern Zeughaus , But the Shafts are orginal to period of use .. and interestingly both Branded " CL" on the Butts for Canton Luzern , so they would not be Cut on the march ! Short like 5 and 6" heads very long Langets . about 15.4 feet long and the diamond section Points and futher sharpened by turing the points to a "point " Needle sharp . In a few minutes of use I could point and take out a object as small as a eye from the full length ! with one hand . They are not the Most expensive weapon I have by far .. but are not cheap :-) )
Michael Pechacek Sr.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hypaspist wrote:-

I kind of get the feeling that the Sarrisa was used in a Pushing Motion ( I guess Like the Push Of Pike ) and that the need for individual dexterity was not as important .. ?

....one would expect that to be correct since, as can be seen from Themistoklis' illustration of close order, there is not much room ( and none beyond the first rank) to wield the pike - still less in 'locked shields' formation.
The strong impression is that the technique was one of 'weight' behind a bristling fence of pikes, rather than much 'wielding/fencing'.
Livy, for example, writes of the line 'bristling with spears', Plutarch of the 'dense barricade' of spears, and the profound effect the sight of Macedonians advancing in 'locked shields', and their ferocity, had on Aemilius Paullus.
Sean wrote:-

Another exception on sarissa length: Polybius (18.29) says that typical sarissas are 14 cubits long. But ancient measurements were often imprecise, or given in subtly different standards, so these figures of 10-14 cubits may all refer to about the same size of weapon.

....interestingly, Polybius seems to have believed that originally sarrissas were 16 cubits long,"but as adapted to actual needs 14 cubits" and thus that the sarissas of his day were shorter than those of Philip and Alexander's. It is also clear that Polybius means a cubit of 18 inches, since he speaks interchangeably of '3 feet' and '2 cubits'.
All of this tallies well with mediaeval pike lengths of 15-22 ft ( 4.5-6.5m ), as Sean points out, and it would be fairly safe to conclude that all sarissa lengths fell within this range, and did not change significantly in length throughout the period of their usage.
Another interesting factor is a morale one....if a disadvantage was that the long sarissas prevented facing to a flank, they also acted as 'fences' between the files, preventing turning around or running - as Polybius points out "..and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about." ( XVIII.30.14 )

[Hypaspist]

Paul ,
Yes I would seriously Doubt any fencing was going on with the Sarrisa :lol: Has anyone every done a study of the Point of Contact of a Sarrisa Armed Phalanx against a Dory Armed One ? In My Mind it seemed to me that at least the first 3 ranks of Sarrisa's would have had contact before even the First rank in the Opposing Dory armed group would or Could have made contact ..any opinions ?

Paul, I also had sent you a PM about Bell helmets .

[Paralus]

Yes I would seriously Doubt any fencing was going on with the Sarrisa. Has anyone every done a study of the Point of Contact of a Sarrisa Armed Phalanx against a Dory Armed One ? In My Mind it seemed to me that at least the first 3 ranks of Sarrisa's would have had contact before even the First rank in the Opposing Dory armed group would or Could have made contact ..any opinions ?

Theophrastus is indeed the only real contemporary source and he is clear: 18 feet as a maximum. Asclepiodotus notes that some were as “shortâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

Michael wrote:-
[quote] As I wrote on the “Silver Shieldsâ€

[geala]

This thread contains very worthful information which helps a lot to get a clearer imagination of pike phalanx combat.

I just want to mention one anecdote showing me that the sarissa must have been similar to the medieval pike and far from being a clumsy inaccurate instrument. When Ptolemy was attacked by Perdiccas and joined the defence of his camp he blinded an elephant with sarissa thrusts. Elephants are big but elephant eyes are not so big, so you have to aim really carefully and have to use a precise weapon.

[Sean Manning]

parallus\\n[quote]Like the dory armed phalanx the sarisa had to remain useable and so must, in some way, have been able to be drawn off the first target, as did the dory in its thrust over and down or under and up, or some of the second to fifth ranks ranks' sarisae moved to forward ranks (just a thought this latter - any experimental archaeologists reading?). It is this, in my view, which came from the “constant drilling under armsâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

Geala/Wolfgang wrote:-

Elephants are big but elephant eyes are not so big, so you have to aim really carefully and have to use a precise weapon.

...an excellent point, Wolfgang, which reinforces the experiences of Michael/Hypaspist related above - clearly a sarissa/pike is more than a mere 'fence/obstacle' but is a deadly and precise weapon in its own right, which view is also reinforced by...

For what its worth, Connolley's five-rank mini-phalanx found that the butts of their pikes passed safely behind the groins of the rank behind them when they used the grip Polybius proscribed, and apparently this was still true once they started thrusting.

Can you tell us more about Connolly's experiences, Sean? Maybe precis/summarise his article?Photos?

[Sean Manning]

The article was “Experiments with the sarissa- the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance- a functional viewâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

Great post, Sean ! Most interesting information. ( Laudes!). Overall, it would appear Connolly was able to verify the Hellenistic manuals and Polybius quite well.

A major point of Connolley's was that in a military context a cubit literally meant a forearm, and two cubits an arm, since that would be what soldiers or their drillmasters would use to check spacing when forming up. That sounds plausible.

.....it is more than plausible, it is how drill is still performed today! eyes right and right arm raised to neighbours shoulder to form 'close' order, both arms raised finger-tip to finger-tip with neighbours to form or 'dress' in 'open order'.....

They were able to run forward in formation with lowered pikes, but felt afraid that a point would drop and hit the ground and produce a pile-up. (Someone might get impaled on a but-spike in that case).

....which tends to confirm the impression that the Macedonian phalanx 'charged' at a fast walk rather than a run ( to maintain cohesion).

...and they don't seem to have had any trouble forming in 'locked shields'. Did they say whether they were able to march in this formation? ( though of course the answer's going to be yes! )

[Aryaman2]

According to David Parrot fencing was a normal way of fighting for pike formations since the early 17th century. Pike formations reduced depth to 10-8 ranks, but only the six front ranges were considered to engage in battle, the others ranks were to provide replacements for the front rank losses and to add cohesion to the formation. Pikemen were deployed in open order, 6 feet apart. For an assault, the formation was changed to 2 company depth in close order.

[Aryaman2]

As for diffrences between the army of Alexander and Hellenistic armies, it has to be taken into account that the Army of Alexander was not at any time more than half Macedonian. According to Diodorus the landing force of of Alexander had just 12.000 Macedonian infantry, and not all would be phalangite, so the phalanx in all made less than half the army´s infantry. The composition would be more similar in a Seleucid army, while in the army of Philip V most of the infantry was phalanx and the cavalry was rather weak. So, each army were different in composition and their phalanx units would have a different role.

[Sean Manning]

As for diffrences between the army of Alexander and Hellenistic armies, it has to be taken into account that the Army of Alexander was not at any time more than half Macedonian. According to Diodorus the landing force of of Alexander had just 12.000 Macedonian infantry, and not all would be phalangite, so the phalanx in all made less than half the army´s infantry. The composition would be more similar in a Seleucid army, while in the army of Philip V most of the infantry was phalanx and the cavalry was rather weak. So, each army were different in composition and their phalanx units would have a different role.

Aryaman, can you recommend a book on the mechanics of late medieval and early modern pike combat? I have the impression that the early Swiss were rather less cautious, but maybe they were the exception.

The funny thing with Alexander's army is that he seems to have kept his Greek infantry out of the fighting wherever possible (they formed a second line at Gaugamela and were somewhere vague at his other battles). Apparently their main task was to provide garrisons and labour. The 16,000 or so Macedonians in his pike phalanx (following Luke Ueda-Sarson, although I think you are right that there are hints of a few lighter Macedonian troops that our historians mostly ignore) seem to have done most of his heavy infantry work.

...and they don't seem to have had any trouble forming in 'locked shields'. Did they say whether they were able to march in this formation? ( though of course the answer's going to be yes! )

If he tried it he didn't mention it. Glad to help!