Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx

[triarius354]

Hi,

I have few questions. Maybe Macedonian reenactors out there (or someone else with theoretical/pracitcal knowledge) could answer?

1) is the weight of sarissa of similar size (say six foot) considerably greater than the pike? What about the sarissa's large spear butt?
2) is it possible to hold sarissa in position similar to medieval/reneissance pikemen (on the level of shoulders or head)?
Are there any evidence pointing to such practice? (only representation of phalangites holding sarissa's in "normal" (low) grip I found is plaque from Pergamon showing battle with Galatians (?))
3) is it possible in this position with sarissa only, or with the shield also? Is the weight of both not too great?
4) and finally - your opinion about "locked shields" formation, where soldier occupies only 0,5 m (Warry, WITCW p.73)? Polybios attests only three foot (18,28-30); are there any evidence about even closer formation?

I'm currently arguing against both "high" grip and 0,5 metre formation on Polish ancient military history forum, and would like to know your opinion. 8)

Sorry for any language mistakes
Regards,

[MeinPanzer]

1) is the weight of sarissa of similar size (say six foot) considerably greater than the pike? What about the sarissa's large spear butt?

Than what sort of pike? Considering how little we actually know for certain about the sarissa (much less than people often seem to think), I don't think we could realistically give a weight for a standard example.

2) is it possible to hold sarissa in position similar to medieval/reneissance pikemen (on the level of shoulders or head)?
Are there any evidence pointing to such practice? (only representation of phalangites holding sarissa's in "normal" (low) grip I found is plaque from Pergamon showing battle with Galatians (?))

That plaque is one of only two sources that I know of that depict phalangites in combat, and both show the same low, underhand grip.

3) is it possible in this position with sarissa only, or with the shield also? Is the weight of both not too great?

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. If you are asking whether someone could hold the sarissa in a low grip, as seen on the plaque, while also holding a shield then the answer is given on the plaque itself - yes.

[PMBardunias]

That plaque is one of only two sources that I know of that depict phalangites in combat, and both show the same low, underhand grip.

Do you have an image of the other you could post. By the way, isn't odd that the sarissa seems to be held under the shield? I have only seen recreations where the sarissa is held at the edge of the shield. How is it shown in the other depiction?

1) is the weight of sarissa of similar size (say six foot) considerably greater than the pike? What about the sarissa's large spear butt?

From: The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor
Minor M. Markle, III
American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 81, No. 3

"The eighteen-foot sarissa minus the length of the point and its socket (0.5I m. = i ft. 8 in.) and that of the butt-spike (0.445 m. = i ft. 6 in.) would equal 178 in., excluding the cones of wood inserted into the sockets of the head and butt. The volume of this shaft (Tr r2 h: 3.I4 x .56 x I78) would be 313 cu. in., and its weight would be this figure times .03 lbs. per cu. in., which would be 9.39 lbs. The weight of the iron sarissa-head is I235 grammes = 2.7 lbs. and that of the butt-spike 1070 grammes =2.4 lbs. (The weight of the coupling sleeve is not given and is hereby excluded.) The total weight of the eighteen-foot sarissa is thus I4.5 lbs. On the assumption that a fifteen-foot sarissa had iron parts of the same weight and size as those described above, it would weigh about I2 lbs."

Email me for the rest.

2) is it possible to hold sarissa in position similar to medieval/reneissance pikemen (on the level of shoulders or head)?
Are there any evidence pointing to such practice? (only representation of phalangites holding sarissa's in "normal" (low) grip I found is plaque from Pergamon showing battle with Galatians (?))

Anything is possible, but there is no evidence for this and if the shield was held on the arm via a porpax, I suggest its weight makes this unlikely.

4) and finally - your opinion about "locked shields" formation, where soldier occupies only 0,5 m (Warry, WITCW p.73)? Polybios attests only three foot (18,28-30); are there any evidence about even closer formation?

Being in synaspismos comes from Aelian and Arrian I believe. it is not clear to me how the peltae of sarissaphoroi could overlap if the sarissa was held at the edge, thus in the way. Also, many macedonian shields were very convex, and this also makes overlap difficult. It is possible, probable?, that to be with overlapped shields at this date simply meant to be at 0.5 m spacing.

[triarius354]

Do you have an image of the other you could post.

I'm also very curious.

Being in synaspismos comes from Aelian and Arrian I believe. it is not clear to me how the peltae of sarissaphoroi could overlap if the sarissa was held at the edge, thus in the way. Also, many macedonian shields were very convex, and this also makes overlap difficult. It is possible, probable?, that to be with overlapped shields at this date simply meant to be at 0.5 m spacing.

I dont' quite understand if you agree or disagree with possibility of this kind of formation. Could you write more about data from Aelian? Also what part of Arrian's "Anabasis" you have in mind - the battle of Hydaspes? I'dont have the Greek version of it.
With overlapped shield there is very little place for sarissas, especially when 5 ranks are using them horizontally.

As for the plaque from Pergamon, it seems to me that artists didn't know how to show the spear and shield - look at the horseman to the right; the spear is on the wrong side of the horse

[MeinPanzer]

Do you have an image of the other you could post. By the way, isn't odd that the sarissa seems to be held under the shield? I have only seen recreations where the sarissa is held at the edge of the shield. How is it shown in the other depiction?

Unfortunately, no, but it's a portion of a Hellenistic votive battle relief from the Anthropological Museum of Marichal College in Aberdeen, Scotland. It shows a phalangite advancing in the foreground with a thurephoros wearing an exomis in the background and a dead body at the bottom of the field.

In the Pergamene battle plaque, the sarissa is not really shown being held under the shield - it is being held about a third of the way up the shield. Nonetheless, as the phalangite faces to the right with his shield on the left arm but somehow covering the sarissa held by his right hand, I suspect that the artist was confused as to how to properly portray the grip. (Such errors of perspective are not uncommon in Hellenistic sculptural art.)

The Aberdeen relief shows the phalangite from the other side, so that he is facing the left. The sarissa is, as expected, held around the middle of the shield, though the shield appears to be quite big.

From: The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor
Minor M. Markle, III
American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 81, No. 3

"The eighteen-foot sarissa minus the length of the point and its socket (0.5I m. = i ft. 8 in.) and that of the butt-spike (0.445 m. = i ft. 6 in.) would equal 178 in., excluding the cones of wood inserted into the sockets of the head and butt. The volume of this shaft (Tr r2 h: 3.I4 x .56 x I78) would be 313 cu. in., and its weight would be this figure times .03 lbs. per cu. in., which would be 9.39 lbs. The weight of the iron sarissa-head is I235 grammes = 2.7 lbs. and that of the butt-spike 1070 grammes =2.4 lbs. (The weight of the coupling sleeve is not given and is hereby excluded.) The total weight of the eighteen-foot sarissa is thus I4.5 lbs. On the assumption that a fifteen-foot sarissa had iron parts of the same weight and size as those described above, it would weigh about I2 lbs."

Email me for the rest.

This may give us a general idea of the weight of a sarissa, but considering Sekunda's discussion in his 2001 article on the materials and construction of the sarissa which challenges most of the assertions made my Andronikos and, subsequently, Markle, these figures are probably way off.

[PMBardunias]

In the Pergamene battle plaque, the sarissa is not really shown being held under the shield - it is being held about a third of the way up the shield.

I meant "under" as in the shield is covering the shaft, so we are in complete agreement.

I suspect that the artist was confused as to how to properly portray the grip.

I am inclined to agree, but this leaves us in the unenviable position that half of our extant images (all until you told me of the Aberdeen relief) are unreliable.

The Aberdeen relief shows the phalangite from the other side, so that he is facing the left. The sarissa is, as expected, held around the middle of the shield, though the shield appears to be quite big.

I'll attempt to hunt this down, if anyone has a copy please share it. Any idea on the date, other than the Thureos? How big is big? as big as an aspis?
***Edit: I have the image if anyone wants it. Very interesting***

This may give us a general idea of the weight of a sarissa, but considering Sekunda's discussion in his 2001 article on the materials and construction of the sarissa which challenges most of the assertions made my Andronikos and, subsequently, Markle, these figures are probably way off.

What is the Sekunda reference? I don't have access to many of his articles. Does he make them heavier or lighter?

Thanks in advance for answering my slew of questions.

[MeinPanzer]

I'll attempt to hunt this down, if anyone has a copy please share it. Any idea on the date, other than the Thureos? How big is big? as big as an aspis?

The style and proportions are very similar to the relief from the victory monument of Aemilius Paullus, so probably early 2nd c. BC. Big as in about the size of an aspis; were the man standing up straight, the shield would almost stretch from shoulder to knee. It also has a very small offset rim.

What is the Sekunda reference? I don't have access to many of his articles. Does he make them heavier or lighter?

The article is "The Sarissa," in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica 23: 2001, 13–41. Sekunda doesn't work with reconstructions, so I don't know necessarily how the weight would change, but if I remember correctly, Markle worked with a reconstruction made of cornel wood. Sekunda goes through some ancient sources about the availability of woods and early modern sources about construction of pikes to convincingly argue that the sarissa, especially examples that were particularly long, would most likely have been made of ash, which is lighter, stronger for its length, and grows very straight and without knots. He records that during the First World War, ash trees were used in the production of British aircraft which provided pieces of timber 32 feet in length with a straight and even grain throughout the whole length and without any defects! So, presumably it would have been much lighter, but he also addresses the head, sleeve, and butt from Vergina which are so often identified as sarissa parts, and presents many reasons why they probably did not belong to a sarissa. Overall, a very important article to read relating to any discussion of the sarissa.

[PMBardunias]

Is this the image you had in mind?

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/virtualmuseum/pic ... =not&sign= >x=&viewnumber=0&resultsperpage=9&termscount=1&listofterms[0]=greece

I'm looking at this and thinking it might just be a pair of hoplites. What I originally thought was a sling for the shield is probably the sling for the sword. The Thureos in the back might just be an aspis drawn with odd perspective. Is there an analysis of this somewhere that points out features I'm missing? What do you think?

[Paullus Scipio]

Peter Connolly also had something to say about the sarissa, following the appearance of Markle's article. He points to Theophrastus ( a contemporary of Philip and Alexander) who gives the length of the longest sarissa as 12 cubits. Polybius, with contemporary personal experience of the later sarissa says it was originally 16 cubits, but had been shortened to a more practical 14 cubits. Unfortunately the cubit varied from place to place, though it is apparent that Polybius equates the cubit to one-and-a-half-feet ( but what size foot?). A metrological relief from Salamis gives the Athenian foot as 30.1 cm, but the cubit as longer than one-and-a-half feet, at 48.7 cm (19.48 inches). Theophrastus lived in Athens, so his 12 cubits works out at 5.8 metres (19.48 feet). Polybius' 18 inch(?) cubit would give roughly 6.3 metres (20.4 ft). It is possible that Polybius and Theophrastus are referring to the same length.
Connolly describes the fittings found at Vergina and identified as sarissa parts by Andronicos and Markle. The winged butt was 44.5 cm long (17.8 inches) and weighed 1.07 kg( 2.40 lbs): a large spearhead 51 cm(20.4 inches) long and weighing 1.235 kg(2.7 lbs): a small spearhead 27.3 cm( 11 inches) long, weighing 0.97 kg(2.2 lbs); and an iron tube/sleeve.
Markle reconstructed the sarissa with a wooden shaft 39mm in diameter, and the large spearhead, and calculated the weight ( of an 18 foot/5.4 m sarissa) based on a hard wood such as cornel at 14.5 lbs(6.5 kg). Connolly reconstructed this and found it almost impossible to get the tip off the ground because of the weight and poor balance.
Connolly then reconstructed a sarissa of Ash ( for the same reasons as Sekunda), using the small spearhead (which was incidently hollow) and a tapered shaft. This weighed just 4.54 kg(10.2 lbs) and had it's point of balance just in front of the left hand, and was very easily handled. It can be seen in the attached photos of Connolly's son Mathew wielding it, as can the grip with pelta/shield slung from telamon/shield-strap and usual shield grips.
Note too that the shield is at an angle to the body (not square) and this is how synapsismos/locked shields was able to be formed with the sarissae protruding.

One can also see why the sarissa, unlike mediaeval/renaissance pikes, was not used overhand - an overhand grip using a shield would place the shield in front of the face, blinding the user, and expose his body !

[PMBardunias]

Note too that the shield is at an angle to the body (not square) and this is how synapsismos/locked shields was able to be formed with the sarissae protruding.

So you agree that there is no literal overlap of shields then? (Why haven't you sent me this paper yet?) :wink:

I've always been troubled with the large head for such a large spear, logic says it should be reduced. What do you think the larger spear head was for? A doru? Perhaps something esle like a hunting spear.

I am a bit troubled by how limited the range of motion is for that front arm if the shoulder-strap is taut enough to support the weight of the sarissa. Anyone here recreated this and tried it?

By the way, I'm working on an idea that unifies the aspis and the "pelta" of the sarissaphoroi as basically the same shield. There may be no jump in technology between the two.

[Paullus Scipio]

Note too that the shield is at an angle to the body (not square) and this is how synapsismos/locked shields was able to be formed with the sarissae protruding.

So you agree that there is no literal overlap of shields then? More or less...
(Why haven't you sent me this paper yet?) :wink:
It is a magazine article rather than a paper....I'll scan it and send it to you......

I've always been troubled with the large head for such a large spear, logic says it should be reduced. What do you think the larger spear head was for? A doru? Perhaps something esle like a hunting spear.
Some have postulated hunting spear, others a rank badge/symbol or decorative type ( c.f. elaborate large Celtic ones, which became rank badges/symbols in the Roman army)
I am a bit troubled by how limited the range of motion is for that front arm if the shoulder-strap is taut enough to support the weight of the sarissa. Anyone here recreated this and tried it?
Have a closer look at the 'blow-up'...Mathew is wielding the 'sarissa' unsupported ( the 'telamon'/strap is slack).The 'telamon'/strap would be useful to help support the weight e.g. in an advance etc, but Connolly's reconstruction is light enough/balanced enough, as he reported ( and I mentioned), to allow free-fighting/wielding in actual combat.
By the way, I'm working on an idea that unifies the aspis and the "pelta" of the sarissaphoroi as basically the same shield. There may be no jump in technology between the two.

[MeinPanzer]

Is this the image you had in mind?

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/virtualmuseum/pic ... =not&sign= >x=&viewnumber=0&resultsperpage=9&termscount=1&listofterms[0]=greece

I'm looking at this and thinking it might just be a pair of hoplites. What I originally thought was a sling for the shield is probably the sling for the sword. The Thureos in the back might just be an aspis drawn with odd perspective. Is there an analysis of this somewhere that points out features I'm missing? What do you think?

That's the one. Yes, that strap around the shoulder is the baldric for the scabbard and not a strap for the shield. The thureos could be an aspis done in perspective, but I don't think so - I can't think of examples of shields being shown in perspective like that from Hellenistic art. As for whether this guy is a hoplite, the angle and method with which he is holding the spear seems to me to be very awkward without the support of the left arm. It is particularly how far back it is that makes me think he is holding it with both arms.

Peter Connolly also had something to say about the sarissa, following the appearance of Markle's article. He points to Theophrastus ( a contemporary of Philip and Alexander) who gives the length of the longest sarissa as 12 cubits. Polybius, with contemporary personal experience of the later sarissa says it was originally 16 cubits, but had been shortened to a more practical 14 cubits. Unfortunately the cubit varied from place to place, though it is apparent that Polybius equates the cubit to one-and-a-half-feet ( but what size foot?). A metrological relief from Salamis gives the Athenian foot as 30.1 cm, but the cubit as longer than one-and-a-half feet, at 48.7 cm (19.48 inches). Theophrastus lived in Athens, so his 12 cubits works out at 5.8 metres (19.48 feet). Polybius' 18 inch(?) cubit would give roughly 6.3 metres (20.4 ft). It is possible that Polybius and Theophrastus are referring to the same length.
Connolly describes the fittings found at Vergina and identified as sarissa parts by Andronicos and Markle. The winged butt was 44.5 cm long (17.8 inches) and weighed 1.07 kg( 2.40 lbs): a large spearhead 51 cm(20.4 inches) long and weighing 1.235 kg(2.7 lbs): a small spearhead 27.3 cm( 11 inches) long, weighing 0.97 kg(2.2 lbs); and an iron tube/sleeve.
Markle reconstructed the sarissa with a wooden shaft 39mm in diameter, and the large spearhead, and calculated the weight ( of an 18 foot/5.4 m sarissa) based on a hard wood such as cornel at 14.5 lbs(6.5 kg). Connolly reconstructed this and found it almost impossible to get the tip off the ground because of the weight and poor balance.
Connolly then reconstructed a sarissa of Ash ( for the same reasons as Sekunda), using the small spearhead (which was incidently hollow) and a tapered shaft. This weighed just 4.54 kg(10.2 lbs) and had it's point of balance just in front of the left hand, and was very easily handled. It can be seen in the attached photos of Connolly's son Mathew wielding it, as can the grip with pelta/shield slung from telamon/shield-strap and usual shield grips.
Note too that the shield is at an angle to the body (not square) and this is how synapsismos/locked shields was able to be formed with the sarissae protruding.

One can also see why the sarissa, unlike mediaeval/renaissance pikes, was not used overhand - an overhand grip using a shield would place the shield in front of the face, blinding the user, and expose his body !

Connolly's article came out only a short time before Sekunda's - less than a year, it seems - and so they probably arrived at similar results independently. Sekunda, however, fishes out a few obscure literary references to get some more information on the nature of the sarissa.

By the way, I'm working on an idea that unifies the aspis and the "pelta" of the sarissaphoroi as basically the same shield. There may be no jump in technology between the two.

It's abundantly clear from evidence that different types of shields were in use among phalangites, including the "classic" small, shallow pelte (such as the examples found at Pergamon, Florina, Staro Bonce, etc.) which was around 60 cm in diameter; the extremely convex larger shield; and the large, fairly shallow shield. There were probably variants in between as well, of course, and I have no doubt that the old thinking that the offset rim of the aspis made it unusable by phalangites is simply untrue.

[triarius354]

Note too that the shield is at an angle to the body (not square) and this is how synapsismos/locked shields was able to be formed with the sarissae protruding.

But the question remains, how much space was then occupied by single soldier. Personally, I don't think that much less than Polybios three feet of frontage woulb be practicable. Warry's 0,5 (or rather 0,45 m) seems simply to restricting for phalangites to use their weapons.
About the term "synapsismos" itself - my Greek is not very good, so could you explain if it means literally "locked" or "close (one to another)" shields.

One can also see why the sarissa, unlike mediaeval/renaissance pikes, was not used overhand - an overhand grip using a shield would place the shield in front of the face, blinding the user, and expose his body !

That's what I thought also.


As for the shields: In "Cambridge History of Greek&Roman Warfare vol I" in article about hellenistic military forces (Sekunda and de Souza) there is mention of three shields with diamter of 66, 73.6 and 74 cm (p337). Connolly after Asklepiodots gives 65-67 cm ("GRAW" p. 77) . Are there any other excavated shields of this kind?

Also, can I ask you to send me this article from Military Illustrated?
Thanks for all your help!

[MeinPanzer]

But the question remains, how much space was then occupied by single soldier. Personally, I don't think that much less than Polybios three feet of frontage woulb be practicable. Warry's 0,5 (or rather 0,45 m) seems simply to restricting for phalangites to use their weapons.
About the term "synapsismos" itself - my Greek is not very good, so could you explain if it means literally "locked" or "close (one to another)" shields.

The Greek just roughly means "shields together" (syn "together" + aspis "shield").

As for the shields: In "Cambridge History of Greek&Roman Warfare vol I" in article about hellenistic military forces (Sekunda and de Souza) there is mention of three shields with diamter of 66, 73.6 and 74 cm (p337). Connolly after Asklepiodots gives 65-67 cm ("GRAW" p. 77) . Are there any other excavated shields of this kind?

Yes, there are. I can't remember which examples Sekunda actually mentions, but whole or fragmentary shallow and rimless shields (presumably peltai) have been found at Pergamon, Dion, Vegora, and recently at Staro Bonce in FYROM, and then there is also the example with the embossed name of a king Pharnaces which is in the J. Paul Getty museum. The latter shield is around 80 cm in diameter, which would place it in the low range of hoplite shield sizes. Connolly's proportions are based on the example from Pergamon.

[Paullus Scipio]

Triarius 354 wrote:

But the question remains, how much space was then occupied by single soldier. Personally, I don't think that much less than Polybios three feet of frontage woulb be practicable. Warry's 0,5 (or rather 0,45 m) seems simply to restricting for phalangites to use their weapons.

....as the researcher for Warry's book, I can confirm the figure is taken from the Hellenistic ( ultimately) manual/s reproduced by Ascepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian. - the latter for example, says that the phalanx is unable to turn/manoevre in this formation, and it is intended to be defensive only. That it was actually used can also be confirmed from accounts of the battle of Sellasia, where one phalanx in close order was marched into another in a manoeuvre called 'epallelos' to produce 'synaspismos' at a cubit or so frontage per man - the action was fought on a ridge whose width is known, confirming the distance. Note from the photo that the phalangite fights from a side-on position, and so can fit into a cubit frontage.

By the way, our Forum rules state you should put your real name as a signature - there is a 'signature' function in your profile.

If you PM me ( send a personal message) with an actual e-mail address I can send the Connolly article to you......