Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx

[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.