Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

The thureos type is actually fairly rare in representational evidence of Hellenistic shielded cavalrymen. The aspis is by far the most common type found in the evidence where the type of shield carried can be discerned.

...If you look again, you'll notice I was referring to Macedonian cavalry, rather than Hellenistic cavalry generally.....but I have doubts about the statement that "The aspis is by far the most common type.." in any event.

One tends to generalise in short posts on a forum such as this - but it has its hazards, eh? :wink:

The Kazanluk tombs are from Seuthopolis, a city founded by the Thracian King Seuthes III around 320BC, or a little later. Since tombs are hardly likely to be among the earliest buildings, it follows that the tombs probably date after 300 BC - i.e. early third C BC.....

Shielded cavalry didn't invariably use javelins; there are quite a few representations of such cavalrymen carrying xysta, while the shieldless lancer all but disappears after the 3rd c. BC. What evidence do you have for their existence into the 2nd c. BC?

Quite a few representations of xystophoroi with shields? hock: I don't think I've come across any of those, at least any depictions that are unequivocally shielded 'xystophoroi'...either PM me or e-mail me with more information, since we are straying ever more off-topic......

As far as I am aware, there are unshielded 'xystophoroi', generally with body armour, and shielded cavalry with either 'longche' , javelins, [amendment]or the shorter thrusting spears -'Doru/Hastae'.....so I'm most interested.

Evidence for the second century ? As I said, the 'xystophoroi' in Seleucid service seem to become heavier armoured after Antiochus Megas' campaigns (210-206 BC) in the East against Parthians ( becoming 'cataphract' lit: 'covered in' i.e. fully armoured, but still unshielded from around 200 BC) By Magnesia (190 BC), most Seleucid heavy cavalry are unshielded up-armoured 'xystophoroi', increasingly called 'cataphract' - Polybius describes these. Livy (XXXVII.40) descibes the 'Hetairoi'/Companion cavalry at Magnesia as "with lighter protection for riders and mounts, but in other equipment not unlike the 'cataphracts' - i.e. very much like traditional 'xystophoroi'.(and of course the original 'Companions' define 'xystophoroi)

A Roman coin - a denarius minted in 121 BC by Q. Pilipus- clearly shows an un-shielded 'xystophoroi', often interpreted as celebrating ancestral deeds of the Third Macedonian War/Pydna (168) and the figure representing Perseus ( the Romans did not, AFIK, use 'xystophoroi', so if the figure is not Perseus, it must be a Greek/Hellenistic ally)

Will that do for starters? :wink:

[MeinPanzer]

...If you look again, you'll notice I was referring to Macedonian cavalry, rather than Hellenistic cavalry generally.....but I have doubts about the statement that "The aspis is by far the most common type.." in any event.

Just to give an example, out of all the Hellenistic stelae depicting cavalrymen and their arms from Pfuhl and Moebius' "Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs," I count 1 cavalryman carrying a round thureos, 1 with a flat, rimless round shield, and 30 with aspides; 4 stelae besides these show groups of three or four cavalrymen in the background all carrying identical aspides. There are plenty of examples elsewhere (a number from Bithynia, some Seleucid and Ptolemaic sources, etc.) that also show that the aspis was predominant.

The Kazanluk tombs are from Seuthopolis, a city founded by the Thracian King Seuthes III around 320BC, or a little later. Since tombs are hardly likely to be among the earliest buildings, it follows that the tombs probably date after 300 BC - i.e. early third C BC.....

Right, so between 320 and 275 BC or so? That fits with the other evidence perfectly.

Quite a few representations of xystophoroi with shields? hock: I don't think I've come across any of those, at least any depictions that are unequivocally shielded 'xystophoroi'...either PM me or e-mail me with more information, since we are straying ever more off-topic......

As far as I am aware, there are unshielded 'xystophoroi', generally with body armour, and shielded cavalry with either 'longche' or javelins.....so I'm most interested.

Whether you want to call them xystophoroi or not, they are unequivocally shielded lancers, carrying their weapons underarm, and not longchophoroi. I have to muster a few together, but I can post them tomorrow.

Evidence for the second century ? As I said, the 'xystophoroi' in Seleucid service seem to become heavier armoured after Antiochus Megas' campaigns (210-206 BC) in the East against Parthians ( becoming 'cataphract' lit: 'covered in' i.e. fully armoured, but still unshielded from around 200 BC) By Magnesia (190 BC), most Seleucid heavy cavalry are unshielded up-armoured 'xystophoroi', increasingly called 'cataphract' - Polybius describes these. Livy (XXXVII.40) descibes the 'Hetairoi'/Companion cavalry at Magnesia as "with lighter protection for riders and mounts, but in other equipment not unlike the 'cataphracts' - i.e. very much like traditional 'xystophoroi'. A Roman coin - a denarius minted in 121 BC by Q. Pilipus- clearly shows an un-shielded 'xystophoroi', often interpreted as celebrating ancestral deeds of the Third Macedonian War/Pydna (168) and the figure representing Perseus ( the Romans did not, AFIK, use 'xystophoroi', so if the figure is not Perseus, it must be a Greek/Hellenistic ally)

Will that do for starters? :wink:

Well, I would ask firstly what evidence you have that the heavy cavalry of the second half of the 3rd c. BC were unshielded xystophoroi, firstly. Then, how do you know how the cataphracts were armed, and how do you know that they were a continuation of the xystophoroi? Also, I meant unshielded xystophoroi beyond the cataphracts and the companions, who by virtue of their equipment are in another class. The cavalrymen depicted on Roman coins are a matter quite apart. It is apparent from Polybius and from a few scattered depiction on gems that Roman cavalrymen became shielded lancers on the Hellenistic model, but they very well may have made use of plain lancers as well.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

Well, I would ask firstly what evidence you have that the heavy cavalry of the second half of the 3rd c. BC were unshielded xystophoroi, firstly.

Well, I'll begin with a quote from you :

Evidence for equipment and costume of Hellenistic armies is sporadic at best.It is quite often hard to date securely and drawn from unknown contexts....

AW magazine,Vol1 Issue 1 p.43...which also happens to show an unshielded cavalryman, presumably a 'xystophoroi' "firmly third century", which you referred to above. There is also, as you said, the Mustapha Pasha frieze, which is dated "early third century" by Sekunda, largely on the basis of the long sleeves, so perhaps we can't count it.
Then there is Duncan Head ( whom I have known since the late 1970's )
"Some Hellenistic cavalry retained the 'xyston' but those who did so do not seem to have adopted shields, though certainty is difficult............Apart from the Pergamenes, cavalry similarly armed seem to have included Ptolemaic, early Seleucid ( until around 200 BC, when most were up-armoured to 'cataphract' - see above, but Companions seem to have been 'xystophoroi' ), later Achaian, and possibly Athenian troops. Several contemporary illustrations show Ptolemaic cavalry with long "xysta' and no shields, the latest dating about 200 BC, some time after shields had been introduced elsewhere." (AMPW, D. Head 1982 PP116-17)

Then, how do you know how the cataphracts were armed, and how do you know that they were a continuation of the xystophoroi?

Polybius describes them as :- "men and horses completely armoured..", Asklepiodotus refers to "very heavy equipment on all sides with armour", there is never any mention of shields for them in our sources, and of course later 'cataphractoi' were certainly shieldless. Both 'xystophoroi' and 'cataphractoi' used a 12 foot lance ( probably). The Pergamum reliefs give us an idea of what some of this equipment looked like, as does a fragmentary terracotta relief flask from southern Khwarezm, dated 3 C BC, showing an armoured horse flank and riders legs covered in armour (parapleuridae?). There is also a terracotta plaque in the BM ( BM 91908) showing an unshielded rider, dressed in head to toe scale armour and helmet spearing a lion with a long spear from babylonia, dated late 3 C BC.

As to continuation, perhaps evolution might be a better word; it is educated guesswork based on the fact that Seleucid armies probably included unshielded 'xystophoroi' who in Antiochus Megas' campaigns probably 'up-armoured' themselves by adopting horse armour and armour for the lower body from their Parthian foes. It would not be a difficult transition, given that both were unshielded cavalry, and both armed ( probably) with a twelve foot lance, though the Parthian variety was probably heavier ( thicker shafted) and needed two hands, hence was likely nicknamed 'kontos' ( bargepole) by slangy greek/Macedonians....

but they very well may have made use of plain lancers as well.

What evidence is there that this was so?

[MeinPanzer]

AW magazine,Vol1 Issue 1 p.43...which also happens to show an unshielded cavalryman, presumably a 'xystophoroi' "firmly third century", which you referred to above. There is also, as you said, the Mustapha Pasha frieze, which is dated "early third century" by Sekunda, largely on the basis of the long sleeves, so perhaps we can't count it.

The majority of Alexandrian painted stelae that can be dated can be dated to the reign of Philadelphus, which would make it very probable that the unshielded cavalryman on that stele (and some on other stelae, too) dates to the first half of the 3rd c. BC.

Then there is Duncan Head ( whom I have known since the late 1970's )
"Some Hellenistic cavalry retained the 'xyston' but those who did so do not seem to have adopted shields, though certainty is difficult............Apart from the Pergamenes, cavalry similarly armed seem to have included Ptolemaic, early Seleucid ( until around 200 BC, when most were up-armoured to 'cataphract' - see above, but Companions seem to have been 'xystophoroi' ), later Achaian, and possibly Athenian troops. Several contemporary illustrations show Ptolemaic cavalry with long "xysta' and no shields, the latest dating about 200 BC, some time after shields had been introduced elsewhere." (AMPW, D. Head 1982 PP116-17)

But, as Duncan can well tell you, the evidence changes, and interpretations must do so to. It was for the longest time thought that Ptolemaic cavalry did not carry shields, and yet here is a figurine of Bes carrying an aspis:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/bes.JPG

What is this piece of evidence which attests to shieldless xystophoroi c. 200 BC?

Polybius describes them as :- "men and horses completely armoured..", Asklepiodotus refers to "very heavy equipment on all sides with armour", there is never any mention of shields for them in our sources, and of course later 'cataphractoi' were certainly shieldless. Both 'xystophoroi' and 'cataphractoi' used a 12 foot lance ( probably). The Pergamum reliefs give us an idea of what some of this equipment looked like, as does a fragmentary terracotta relief flask from southern Khwarezm, dated 3 C BC, showing an armoured horse flank and riders legs covered in armour (parapleuridae?). There is also a terracotta plaque in the BM ( BM 91908) showing an unshielded rider, dressed in head to toe scale armour and helmet spearing a lion with a long spear from babylonia, dated late 3 C BC.

As to continuation, perhaps evolution might be a better word; it is educated guesswork based on the fact that Seleucid armies probably included unshielded 'xystophoroi' who in Antiochus Megas' campaigns probably 'up-armoured' themselves by adopting horse armour and armour for the lower body from their Parthian foes. It would not be a difficult transition, given that both were unshielded cavalry, and both armed ( probably) with a twelve foot lance, though the Parthian variety was probably heavier ( thicker shafted) and needed two hands, hence was likely nicknamed 'kontos' ( bargepole) by slangy greek/Macedonians....

Yes, we know that cataphracts and later Companions were heavily armoured lancers. But why couldn't they have evolved from shielded xystophoroi who abandoned their shields when they became more heavily armoured? Also, that BM plaque is variously dated, and I've seen it dated as late as the 2nd c. AD. It's definitely not a solid source for early cataphract armour.

What evidence is there that this was so?

Coinage like that issue you posted and the depictions of the Dioskouroi as lancers.

Here are some of those shielded lancers:

The well-known Pergamene battle plaque, showing either Pergamene or Roman cavalry.

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... escene.JPG

And a Roman lancer, 2nd-1st c. BC:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... lancer.JPG

Two stelae of cavalrymen from Apollonia:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... nistic.JPG
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... istic2.JPG

A painted glass cup from Begram, depicting a copy of a Ptolemaic battle scene:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/begram.JPG

A coin from Cibyra:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/cibyra.JPG

[Paullus Scipio]

IIRC, we have noted before on another thread ( with regard to the ‘Kontos’ in the “Cataphract and Clibanarii” thread ) the extreme difficulties of trying to determine spear lengths from Art; - because it is not to scale; may be depicting ‘three quarter’ views or fore-shortened ones - see Robert’s photos in that thread; the artist often changes proportions for artistic effect; or because of the size of the background; certainly isn’t using measurements - usually applying simply ‘what looks right’ and so on…..Still, it is pretty much all we have to go on, so perhaps we should make some attempt.
First, let us decide on the characteristics of the ‘Xyston’. The two best depictions are the one on the Alexander mosaic and the Kinch’s tomb painting. These show a lance some 12 ft long, or perhaps a little longer, to a practical maximum of 15ft/4.7m. (Markle tried a longer one, but discovered it impractical to recover, and so had to be abandoned after first thrust ; Connolly determined by practical experiment that 15 ft/4.7m was the maximum that could be ‘recovered’ following a thrust, and that sideways. Compare John Conyards pracical experiences in the above-mentioned thread). C.F. Aelian’s ‘Tactica’ statement that a cavalry ‘sarissa’(‘xyston’) was 10 cubits/15 ft/4.4 m, and not less than 8 cubits/ 12 ft/ 3.7 m long.
The lance is tapered and has a heavy counterweight, apparently in the form of a spearhead, and hollow point, so that it can be wielded underarm about one quarter to one third of the way from the rear ( though this is not unique – the earlier Greek cavalry ‘Kamax’ was also tapered, with a heavy spear-butt, and held a third of the way from the rear, but was around 8-9 ft/2.5-2.7 m long).

With this in mind, let us examine Ruben’s examples

Ruben wrote:

The well-known Pergamene battle plaque, showing either Pergamene or Roman cavalry.

This is famous for showing a ‘sarissa’ in action. The ‘sarissa’ size is now known with a little more exactitude, following the discovery of the length of the ‘Attic’ cubit, likely used by Theophrastus, which brings the ‘sarissa’ length roughly into line with Polybius at 18-20 ft/5.5 – 6.2 m ). See Connolly JRMES 11 , 2000.

1.Comparing the length of the cavalryman’s spear, it is nothing like two-thirds or more of the ‘sarissa’ length, but more like one-third i.e. aprox 6-7 ft/1.8-2.1 m, the length of a ‘longche’ ( around 6 ft/1.8 m) or perhaps a ‘Hasta/Doru’ ( 7-9 ft/2.1-2.7 m), though it is held to the rear.

2. Horses 13-14 hands high (52- 56 inches /1.3-1.4 m tall), such as ancient cavalry horses, have a length ratio of 15:20 ( breast to rump) giving a length of roughly 70-74 inches long, say 6 ft/1.8 m roughly. The two leftward facing horses are exactly the same length ( say 6 ft) and the cavalryman’s spear is about 1.5 times this – again a spear length of around 9 ft/2.7 m.

3. The riders are out of proportion to the horses ( a seated rider is roughly 4 ft/1.2 m from heel to top of head) by a third. If the shield and spear are in proportion to the body, as we might expect, then the spear is around 6 ft long at most….

Whichever proportions are used ( and bearing in mind these can only ever be very approximate), we get a spear-length of around 6-9 ft, but not the12-15 ft of the ‘xyston’. It is just the wrong ‘order of magnitude’ to be a 12 -15 ft ‘xyston’.

Two stelae of cavalrymen from Apollonia:

Similar ‘guesstimating’ produces much the same results….the riders are too large proportionally, and whether one uses the horse length or rider height, we get a range of roughly 6-9 ft, not 12-15 ft, ( even allowing for some lost length). The angle the spears are held at, and the fact that they are held centrally also argue strongly against them being ‘xysta’.

A painted glass cup from Begram, depicting a copy of a Ptolemaic battle scene:

This is more problematic, for the rear of the spear is missing. If we assume ‘rear’ grip, then proportional to the oversize rider, we get a little over 4 ft in front of the hand and 6 ft overall; assuming a centre grip, around 8 ft long.

If we use the horses proportions ( problematic since it is turned toward the viewer and hence foreshortened, rather than in profile)we get around 7 ft overall (rear grip) or 10.5 ft ( central grip) – still not the minimum size of 12 ft, and significantly less than 14 ft.

A coin from Cibyra

:

Again, the spear length proportional to the oversized rider is around 8-9 ft BUT proportional to the undersized horse, well over 12 ft and close to 14-15 ft, it is held closer to the rear, and seems to have a heavy butt-spike! This one might well be a ‘xyston’/’cavalry ‘sarissa’ (but only if proportional to the under-sized horse) !

Now, as I have emphasised already, all of this is just estimation, and the artists were not trying to be ‘photographically’ realistic for all the reasons stated above, but the overall impression is that all these examples are ‘of the order of magnitude’ of’ longche’ or ‘hasta/dory’ at best, and not the almost twice as long ‘xyston’. Nothing can be safely concluded of course.

On a different tack, I would be interested in John Conyard's opinion of how practical it is to wield a large circular shield with his 4 m 'kontos' on horseback ( of course mediaeval knights did, but with less clumsy kite shields, and bigger horses)...... D

[MeinPanzer]

IIRC, we have noted before on another thread ( with regard to the ‘Kontos’ in the “Cataphract and Clibanarii” thread ) the extreme difficulties of trying to determine spear lengths from Art; - because it is not to scale; may be depicting ‘three quarter’ views or fore-shortened ones - see Robert’s photos in that thread; the artist often changes proportions for artistic effect; or because of the size of the background; certainly isn’t using measurements - usually applying simply ‘what looks right’ and so on…

....

With this in mind, let us examine Ruben’s examples

This is famous for showing a ‘sarissa’ in action. The ‘sarissa’ size is now known with a little more exactitude, following the discovery of the length of the ‘Attic’ cubit, likely used by Theophrastus, which brings the ‘sarissa’ length roughly into line with Polybius at 18-20 ft/5.5 – 6.2 m ). See Connolly JRMES 11 , 2000.

1.Comparing the length of the cavalryman’s spear, it is nothing like two-thirds or more of the ‘sarissa’ length, but more like one-third i.e. aprox 6-7 ft/1.8-2.1 m, the length of a ‘longche’ ( around 6 ft/1.8 m) or perhaps a ‘Hasta/Doru’ ( 7-9 ft/2.1-2.7 m), though it is held to the rear.

2. Horses 13-14 hands high (52- 56 inches /1.3-1.4 m tall), such as ancient cavalry horses, have a length ratio of 15:20 ( breast to rump) giving a length of roughly 70-74 inches long, say 6 ft/1.8 m roughly. The two leftward facing horses are exactly the same length ( say 6 ft) and the cavalryman’s spear is about 1.5 times this – again a spear length of around 9 ft/2.7 m.

3. The riders are out of proportion to the horses ( a seated rider is roughly 4 ft/1.2 m from heel to top of head) by a third. If the shield and spear are in proportion to the body, as we might expect, then the spear is around 6 ft long at most….

Whichever proportions are used ( and bearing in mind these can only ever be very approximate), we get a spear-length of around 6-9 ft, but not the12-15 ft of the ‘xyston’. It is just the wrong ‘order of magnitude’ to be a 12 -15 ft ‘xyston’.

Well, let's firstly examine your sources. You derive your numbers from the Alexander Mosaic and the Kinch tomb painting, both late 4th c. BC (perhaps early 3rd for the latter). However, we know that the sarissa changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period, and so it seems just as likely that the xyston could have changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period as well. Given that rigid categorizations lose their effectiveness when categories of shafted weapons were so flexible, I don't think this is the right approach.

So, let's return to your statement from before:

As far as I am aware, there are unshielded 'xystophoroi', generally with body armour, and shielded cavalry with either 'longche' or javelins.....so I'm most interested.

You are stating here that the cavalry carrying shields also were equipped with longchai or javelins. Now, lonche is a cognate of lancea, and refers to a light spear or a javelin - certainly not a lance. And yet in several of those images I posted cavalrymen are shown wielding lances with shields. So, regardless of what you want to call the lance, there commonly were lancer cavalrymen carrying shields in the Hellenistic period. Asclepiodotus also states that this is the case:

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.

The key here is that these are cavalrymen carrying long spears which can be called either xysta or dorata (but not longchai), but regardless of the terminology they are lancers carrying shields. So, what can be said is that the Hellenistic military writers recognized that there were lancers with shields.

Now, these representations clearly do not show longchai or javelins in use - those were shorter, lighter spears, and we have plenty of representations of shielded Hellenistic cavalrymen wielding shorter spears overhand. We could argue semantics, but the only real point that I was making is that these are lancer cavalrymen carrying long spears. Since, as you have so clearly pointed out, we cannot hope to measure accurately and distinguish between different types of cavalry lances, and since the dimensions of the xyston would almost certainly have changed throughout the Hellenistic period, it can be said with some certainty that some of such shielded lancers were intended to depict xystophoroi.

One separate point:

This is famous for showing a ‘sarissa’ in action. The ‘sarissa’ size is now known with a little more exactitude, following the discovery of the length of the ‘Attic’ cubit, likely used by Theophrastus, which brings the ‘sarissa’ length roughly into line with Polybius at 18-20 ft/5.5 – 6.2 m ). See Connolly JRMES 11 , 2000.

1.Comparing the length of the cavalryman’s spear, it is nothing like two-thirds or more of the ‘sarissa’ length, but more like one-third i.e. aprox 6-7 ft/1.8-2.1 m, the length of a ‘longche’ ( around 6 ft/1.8 m) or perhaps a ‘Hasta/Doru’ ( 7-9 ft/2.1-2.7 m), though it is held to the rear.

2. Horses 13-14 hands high (52- 56 inches /1.3-1.4 m tall), such as ancient cavalry horses, have a length ratio of 15:20 ( breast to rump) giving a length of roughly 70-74 inches long, say 6 ft/1.8 m roughly. The two leftward facing horses are exactly the same length ( say 6 ft) and the cavalryman’s spear is about 1.5 times this – again a spear length of around 9 ft/2.7 m.

3. The riders are out of proportion to the horses ( a seated rider is roughly 4 ft/1.2 m from heel to top of head) by a third. If the shield and spear are in proportion to the body, as we might expect, then the spear is around 6 ft long at most….

Whichever proportions are used ( and bearing in mind these can only ever be very approximate), we get a spear-length of around 6-9 ft, but not the12-15 ft of the ‘xyston’. It is just the wrong ‘order of magnitude’ to be a 12 -15 ft ‘xyston’.

Any attempt at calculating spear lengths in this image is confounded by two facts: neither the spear of the foremost cavalryman nor that of the phalangite can be measured, since the ends are not visible. In addition to this, the length of the shaft of the rear cavalryman's spear which is visible is significantly longer than the entire length of the foremost cavalryman's.

[Paullus Scipio]

Well, as I expected, we are going to have to agree to differ here - though it is interesting to get all this information out - one or two of the depictions you have put up are unfamiliar to me, and no doubt others! D

Ruben wrote:

However, we know that the sarissa changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period, and so it seems just as likely that the xyston could have changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period as well. Given that rigid categorizations lose their effectiveness when categories of shafted weapons were so flexible, I don't think this is the right approach.

...I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with this. It used to be thought that this was the case based on Theophrastus of Athens( contemporary with Philip and Alexander) says the longest 'sarissa' was "12 cubits". Polybius ( 2nd C BC, at the end of the Hellenistic age) says "14 cubits". As I posted above, with the discovery of the exact size of the 'Attic cubit', Theophrastus' 'longest sarissa' is around 19 ft/5.8 m, almost identical to Polybius' "14 cubits"( 19 ft/5.8 m) Connolly JRMES 11 2000 - which means the length of the 'sarissa' was quite consistently the same length throughout the period.
It is also consistent with medieval/renaissance Swiss and English pikes ( 18-19 ft long pikes survive in the Tower of London, and Machiavelli states Swiss pikes to be 18 ft long, though a few seem to have been slightly shorter or longer than this). It is likely then that cavalry 'sarissae'/'xysta' were also consistently much the same range of lengths. Aelian ( using late Hellenistic sources) gives this as "10 cubits, not less than 8 cubits"- 15-12 ft/ 4.4-3.7 m. We don't have a literary source for the earlier period but the detailed examples on the Alexander mosaic, and Kinch's tomb painting are consistent with this.
Both weapons were a particular size because that was their optimum, and also for practical reasons ( see previous post).

Personally, I believe that we can in a broad general sense categorise Greek and Roman shafted spear type weapons with very little overlap........javelins, purely throwing weapons, 3-4 ft/0.9-1.2m; 'longche' (gk)/'lanchea' (lat), dual purpose throwing/thrusting weapons , 5ft 6ins-6ft 6ins/1.7-2.0 m ; 'pila'/saunion/solaferum and other heavy throwing weapons, 5ft 6ins -7 ft/1.7m-2.2 m; 'Great Spear','doru'(gk) 'Hasta'(latin), thrusting weapon, 8-9ft/2.5m-2.8m; 'sarissa' two handed pike 18-20 ft/5.6m-6.2m......and for cavalry, in addition to javelins,' longche/lanchea', and 'Doru/Hasta'; the 'kamax', thrusting spear, tapering with heavy counter balance so as to be held at the rear, 8-9ft/2.5m-2.8m; 'xyston', similar but 12-15 ft /3.7-4.4m long; 'kontos', as for 'xyston' but thicker, heavier shaft requiring two-handed use for the most part.

Notice that each weapon comes in a specific, fairly limited, size range ( broadly speaking) and that there are sometimes 'gaps' between these.There are also differences in shaft thicknesses too.... As a result, I don't think that categories are terribly flexible at all - even allowing for weapon 'evolution' over time, and regional variations, and therefore categorisations of shafted weapons can be useful.

You are stating here that the cavalry carrying shields also were equipped with longchai or javelins. Now, lonche is a cognate of lancea, and refers to a light spear or a javelin - certainly not a lance.

...sorry, I wrote hastily and should have included 'Doru/Hasta' there as well....but the point remains the same - 12-15ft lances/'xysta' don't seem to be associated with shields. I tend to agree with Duncan, who went on from my earlier quote to say;

"In general, illustrations of Hellenistic cavalry with the long spear (xyston) are quite numerous, and so are illustrations of cavalry with shields; it is not likely to be co-incidence that the two are never seen together" ( AMPW p.17)

I think we may be at slight cross-purposes too, in that I get the impression that you define 'lancer' as anyone using a spear underarm...which should not be the case, since all thrusting spears - 'Doru/Hasta', 'Xyston' and even 'Kontos' can be used overhand or underarm as occasion demands ( see Sassanian rock relief of King Khusru using 'kontos' single overhand for example)

Any attempt at calculating spear lengths in this image is confounded by two facts: neither the spear of the foremost cavalryman nor that of the phalangite can be measured, since the ends are not visible. In addition to this, the length of the shaft of the rear cavalryman's spear which is visible is significantly longer than the entire length of the foremost cavalryman's.

Oh dear, I was expecting this - a difference of interpretation....see diagrams below. I believe it is possible to interpret the beltplate as either, but there are problems with both.....
With interpretation 1; the sarissa may be too long, and there is a lacuna/gap ( shown dotted) as well....but the artist could well have exaggerated the length.
With interpretation 2 ; the second cavalryman's spear (green) passes to his horse's left ( the wrong side) and disappears behind his shield, and would appear to be held horizontal the same side as the shield....though this is much the same sort of inaccuracy, due to the belt-plate's small size, as the possible lacuna in (1). Even stranger, the plane of the cavalryman's spear ( if that is what it is) EXACTLY aligns with the 'sarissa' - surely something no artist would do - but of course such a 'mistake' could well be unintentional.

Perhaps in the circumstances we ought to preclude comparative spear lengths, since it is rather ambiguous, but that still leaves the proportions of spear versus man, or horse, and I allowed for the fact that the spears 'disappear' behind bodies etc - but they don't re-appear the other side. I think my point stands even ignoring comparative spear lengths.

[MeinPanzer]

...I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with this. It used to be thought that this was the case based on Theophrastus of Athens( contemporary with Philip and Alexander) says the longest 'sarissa' was "12 cubits". Polybius ( 2nd C BC, at the end of the Hellenistic age) says "14 cubits". As I posted above, with the discovery of the exact size of the 'Attic cubit', Theophrastus' 'longest sarissa' is around 19 ft/5.8 m, almost identical to Polybius' "14 cubits"( 19 ft/5.8 m) Connolly JRMES 11 2000 - which means the length of the 'sarissa' was quite consistently the same length throughout the period.
It is also consistent with medieval/renaissance Swiss and English pikes ( 18-19 ft long pikes survive in the Tower of London, and Machiavelli states Swiss pikes to be 18 ft long, though a few seem to have been slightly shorter or longer than this). It is likely then that cavalry 'sarissae'/'xysta' were also consistently much the same range of lengths. Aelian ( using late Hellenistic sources) gives this as "10 cubits, not less than 8 cubits"- 15-12 ft/ 4.4-3.7 m.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with your response! 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. His calculation of Theophrastus' sarissa seems right - the Salamis relief is as solid a piece of evidence as we could hope to get for Attic standard measures, and Theophrastus surely measured by the Attic standard. His Macedonian measurement, however, is less than stellar. His solution to the problem - seeing the Macedonian cubit as simply an anatomical measure - is a naively simple one; isn't every measure or its derivation anatomical at some point? And yet, feet and cubits varied even between different Greek states. Then, he assumes that the double cubit was measured on the length of the forearm, and assumes that the measurement came from a man of 1.75 m in height. This number is, as far as I can tell, is an arbitrary "above average" height. Though I am no expert on ancient measures, I would assume that the Macedonian cubit existed as a measurement before the rise of Philip II, and so I doubt somehow that this unit arose from the men of the phalanx or the proportions of their bodies. Not to mention that Connolly does not take into account anthropometric studies: it is apparent from some studies of the bodies of Hellenistic men of fighting age that the average height was close to 1.72 m (G. Kron, "Anthropometry, Physical Anthropology, and the Reconstruction of Ancient Health, Nutrition, and Living Standards," in Historia, 54/1, 2005).

To suggest an alternative, N.G.L. Hammond published an article entitled "A Macedonian Shield and Macedonian Measures" (The Annual of the British School at Athens, 91, 1996 - apparently unknown to Connolly) in which he discusses some of the evidence for the Macedonian cubit. A breakdown of measurements from military fortifications at Dion, seemingly made to exact specifications, yield a measurement of the Macedonian foot as 0.328 m, which matches pretty closely the evidence we have elsewhere from shield facings matching up with Asclepiodotus' specification for the Macedonian shield for a foot of about 0.33 m. This foot of 0.33 m would make up a cubit of 0.495 m, which would make Polybius' sarissa 6.93 m in length, or 22.7 feet.

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 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.

So, unfortunately it is not possible to argue for a unified sarissa length without cherry picking the evidence, and when he does so Connolly's calculations are based on a very shaky foundation.

We don't have a literary source for the earlier period but the detailed examples on the Alexander mosaic, and Kinch's tomb painting are consistent with this.
Both weapons were a particular size because that was their optimum, and also for practical reasons ( see previous post).

...sorry, I wrote hastily and should have included 'Doru/Hasta' there as well....but the point remains the same - 12-15ft lances/'xysta' don't seem to be associated with shields. I tend to agree with Duncan, who went on from my earlier quote to say;

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. Secondly, if you actually compare the proportions of the spears carried on a few of those images I posted to that of the Kinch tomb (and I'm working from the original paintings and photographs published by Kinch), even ones like the Begram cup where part of the rear end is missing, you'd see that in proportion to the horse and rider they actually appear the same size or longer!

Personally, I believe that we can in a broad general sense categorise Greek and Roman shafted spear type weapons with very little overlap........javelins, purely throwing weapons, 3-4 ft/0.9-1.2m; 'longche' (gk)/'lanchea' (lat), dual purpose throwing/thrusting weapons , 5ft 6ins-6ft 6ins/1.7-2.0 m ; 'pila'/saunion/solaferum and other heavy throwing weapons, 5ft 6ins -7 ft/1.7m-2.2 m; 'Great Spear','doru'(gk) 'Hasta'(latin), thrusting weapon, 8-9ft/2.5m-2.8m; 'sarissa' two handed pike 18-20 ft/5.6m-6.2m......and for cavalry, in addition to javelins,' longche/lanchea', and 'Doru/Hasta'; the 'kamax', thrusting spear, tapering with heavy counter balance so as to be held at the rear, 8-9ft/2.5m-2.8m; 'xyston', similar but 12-15 ft /3.7-4.4m long; 'kontos', as for 'xyston' but thicker, heavier shaft requiring two-handed use for the most part.

Notice that each weapon comes in a specific, fairly limited, size range ( broadly speaking) and that there are sometimes 'gaps' between these.There are also differences in shaft thicknesses too.... As a result, I don't think that categories are terribly flexible at all - even allowing for weapon 'evolution' over time, and regional variations, and therefore categorisations of shafted weapons can be useful.

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.

...sorry, I wrote hastily and should have included 'Doru/Hasta' there as well....but the point remains the same - 12-15ft lances/'xysta' don't seem to be associated with shields. I tend to agree with Duncan, who went on from my earlier quote to say;

I think we may be at slight cross-purposes too, in that I get the impression that you define 'lancer' as anyone using a spear underarm...which should not be the case, since all thrusting spears - 'Doru/Hasta', 'Xyston' and even 'Kontos' can be used overhand or underarm as occasion demands ( see Sassanian rock relief of King Khusru using 'kontos' single overhand for example)

Yes, but it's pretty clear from Greek art that in the Hellenistic period longer spears were employed by shielded cavalry underhand - such spears do not appear in representations of shielded cavalry wielding spears overhand.

Oh dear, I was expecting this - a difference of interpretation....see diagrams below. I believe it is possible to interpret the beltplate as either, but there are problems with both.....
With interpretation 1; the sarissa may be too long, and there is a lacuna/gap ( shown dotted) as well....but the artist could well have exaggerated the length.

For this interpretation, there is the additional problem that the sarissa appears to have no head at all.

With interpretation 2 ; the second cavalryman's spear (green) passes to his horse's left ( the wrong side) and disappears behind his shield, and would appear to be held horizontal the same side as the shield....though this is much the same sort of inaccuracy, due to the belt-plate's small size, as the possible lacuna in (1). Even stranger, the plane of the cavalryman's spear ( if that is what it is) EXACTLY aligns with the 'sarissa' - surely something no artist would do - but of course such a 'mistake' could well be unintentional.

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.

[John Conyard]

I’ve just noticed this thread and it’s an interesting read. I fear I am going to appear like a “bull in china shop” so please forgive me. It’s been a hard day, I’ve had a drink, guests are due for dinner and the snow is piling up outside.

I think the issues around iconographic interpretation have being examined. Suffice to say I would trust some of the details on a typical grave stele as far as I could throw it. Sorry.

And while the length of the weapon is import ant so is the diameter of the shaft and the weight. So I own a lovely 9’ spear of 1” diameter with a small head which is a joy to use one handed. And a 6’ spear with 1.5” diameter and large head, which is more of challenge. Both can be used with dramatic effect two handed. Tapering the shaft makes a heavier weapon, great for penetration but hard to carry and use for any length of time. I’m getting used to them, but they are a different “ball game”. They do allow you to hold the weapon further towards the butt, but you can also hold a light weapon towards the rear of the shaft just because they are light.

Each rider has his own favourite weapon. When fighting other cavalry my choice is between a light 9’ training spear for distance, or preferably a heavy 6’ training spear which is good for parrying and heavy enough to land a good blow. Single handed spears can be very effective weapons. A few years ago a jousting group at the yard set up an armoured spring loaded target. It was made of high-density rubber covered in plate. They could hit it at great speed with a couched lance and it would never fall over. But using a spear over-arm you could get the tip of the weapon through the eyehole of the helmet, and use the momentum of the horse to force the target backwards and down to get the thing to fall over every time. The only downside was having to get off the horse to put the thing back up again.

I shun away from strict classifications of weapons although I appreciate their usefulness. I suspect the average cavalryman was constantly lightening his equipment by chopping off bits of shaft etc.

To my surprise lots of videos and photos show me carrying a 12’ -15” foot long weapon in one hand. As on many gravestones. But when hitting things you need two hands for precision and power. I suspect my weapons are not thick enough, and I often shatter 1” diameter ash shafts. The length of the weapon means they bend too much. A larger diameter shaft would be better, and perhaps be closer to a real kontos. But a long 12’ weapon of small or large diameter shaft means you need to use it two handed. And this is a weapon designed for close contact, so power is important.

Using the kontos two-handed means I can carry a small shield strapped on my left arm, but not in my left hand. You can carry large “Celtic” shields in your left hand and use a long light 9’spear. Remember the hand holds the shield handle, so you can only use the weapon one handed. Although you can throw the shield on to your back and use two hands. My aspis is a DSC version, 9.6kg or 22lb in weight, perceived as heavy by some. I could carry it to a battlefield on horseback, to be used on foot. It's the wrong shape and too heavy to use on horseback. I would not want to ride in anger carrying it. Ever. At all.

[MeinPanzer]

To my surprise lots of videos and photos show me carrying a 12’ -15” foot long weapon in one hand. As on many gravestones. But when hitting things you need two hands for precision and power. I suspect my weapons are not thick enough, and I often shatter 1” diameter ash shafts. The length of the weapon means they bend too much. A larger diameter shaft would be better, and perhaps be closer to a real kontos. But a long 12’ weapon of small or large diameter shaft means you need to use it two handed. And this is a weapon designed for close contact, so power is important.

Using the kontos two-handed means I can carry a small shield strapped on my left arm, but not in my left hand. You can carry large “Celtic” shields in your left hand and use a long light 9’spear. Remember the hand holds the shield handle, so you can only use the weapon one handed. Although you can throw the shield on to your back and use two hands. My aspis is a DSC version, 9.6kg or 22lb in weight, perceived as heavy by some. I could carry it to a battlefield on horseback, to be used on foot. It's the wrong shape and too heavy to use on horseback. I would not want to ride in anger carrying it. Ever. At all.

John, thanks for your input. It's always good to hear about these debates from another perspective. I have two questions for you.

What do you make of representations of shielded cavalrymen wielding lances quite far back, so that their lance-bearing arm is almost at a 90-degree angle to the body? For reference, these are the two best pictures of those I posted before which illustrate this:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/begram.JPG
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... lancer.JPG

This is quite a departure from the earlier representations like the Kinch tomb and the Alexander mosaic in which the arm is held much more loosely at the side.

Secondly, given your experience with using a regular aspis on horseback, what do you make of representations of Hellenistic cavalrymen that show them carrying aspides as big as the regular hoplite aspis? Here is a good example of this, a 2nd c. BC stele from Cyzicus:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/cyzicus.JPG

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Very interesting info!
And what if you had that same shield,maybe a bit smaller (less than 90cm for instance) and a lot lighter (like no more than 6 kgr,as the estimations for the real vatican shield put it)?
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

Ruben wrote: A

However, we know that the sarissa changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period, and so it seems just as likely that the xyston could have changed in length throughout the Hellenistic period as well. Given that rigid categorizations lose their effectiveness when categories of shafted weapons were so flexible, I don't think this is the right approach.

...I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with this. It used to be thought that this was the case based on Theophrastus of Athens( contemporary with Philip and Alexander) says the longest 'sarissa' was "12 cubits". Polybius ( 2nd C BC, at the end of the Hellenistic age) says "14 cubits".

Carefull there Paullus: you're taking on the glow of the religious "only I know the truth..."

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…

The much quoted source for the length of sarissae in Philip II’s time is Theoprhrastus who writes:

The wood of the male tree has no heart, but is wood throughout, like horn in closeness and strength; whereas that of the female tree has heart wood and is softer and goes into holes; wherefore it is useless for javelins. The hight of the male tree is at most twelve cubits, the lenght of the longest sarissa...

Now Theophrastus states that the male tree is 12 cubits and of similar length to the longest sarissa. Clearly the existence of shorter sarissae is implied by such a statement.

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?

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.

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 too agree with the words of John Conyard above. Personally (and I’m no rider), I find it difficult to conceive of a rider – at the gallop – successfully wielding a lance over twelve or so feet long. The only clear description of these xystons in battle (Arrian’s Granikos 3.14) show them doing exactly what John describes:

At last Alexander's men began to gain the advantage, both through their superior strength and military discipline, and because they fought with spears whose shafts were made of cornel-wood, whereas the Persians used only darts. Then indeed, Alexander's spear being broken to shivers in the conflict, he asked Aretis, one of the royal guards, whose duty it was to assist the king to mount his horse, for another spear. But this man's spear had also been shivered while he was in the thickest of the struggle…

At Gaugamela Arrian describes them as being used to strike at faces and, at say 11-12 feet long, this will have been their advantage over the far shorter Persian spears. I cannot, in way shape or form, countenance Markle’s notion of such cavalry wielding the cavalry equivalent of the sarissa at fifteen feet or more.

[Paullus Scipio]

Carefull there Paullus: you're taking on the glow of the religious "only I know the truth..."

....that's a bit snide and uncalled for....and one of the silliest things you've posted!....to state the obvious, the whole point of posting is to encourage discussion and elicit information that one doesn't have, in order to expand one's views.... :roll: :roll:

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:

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 ! :x

Clearly the existence of shorter sarissae is implied by such a statement......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 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......

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.

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.

Possibly, but I don't think it necessarily follows that just because two distinct units are referred to, they were necessarily differently armed. There is nothing to suggest they didn't carry the 'xyston'.....in fact there is no hint as to how the 'Hetaroi'/Companions were armed in this passage. The fact that the cavalry action is described with the generic term 'fighting was with spears' which also might indicate that the various units were differently armed, but that is certain anyway, because it included 'Tarantines'.( "most of which were shattered" might be a clue that most of these were 'long lances'/xysta) ......

I too agree with the words of John Conyard above. Personally (and I’m no rider), I find it difficult to conceive of a rider – at the gallop – successfully wielding a lance over twelve or so feet long.

...although Connolly demonstrated that a lance/xyston up to 15 ft long could be wielded, as per the sources, I would agree with you and John here ( I am an infrequent rider, but have tried 'tent-pegging' with a 9ft lance, and that was extremely difficult, and I would say , impossible with anything longer, so I reckon 12ft to be pretty close to a practical limit for accuracy against a man-sized target....FWIW).

It is noteworthy that mediaeval lances were seldom more than 10 ft in length, carried by shielded cavalry ( though with handier kite shields) .

[Paralus]

Carefull there Paullus: you're taking on the glow of the religious "only I know the truth..."

....that's a bit snide and uncalled for....and one of the silliest things you've posted!....to state the obvious, the whole point of posting is to encourage discussion and elicit information that one doesn't have, in order to expand one's views.... :roll: :roll:

My dear fellow, either you are becoming rather sensitive or have begun to take yourself rather too seriously. The remark was not snide; silly is in the eye of the reader. It was a “light” aside.

As a s(n)ide note: I do not resort “smilies” and “emoticons” to somehow soften my supposed “snide”, “silly” or more “pointed” remarks.

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:

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 ! :x

The “sainted” Conolly aside, we seem only to be able to “trust” Polybios when he accords with your own views. He clearly indicates that there had been a change in sarissa length: that he has the “original” correct is another matter; for 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.

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.

Possibly, but I don't think it necessarily follows that just because two distinct units are referred to, they were necessarily differently armed. There is nothing to suggest they didn't carry the 'xyston'.....in fact there is no hint as to how the 'Hetaroi'/Companions were armed in this passage. The fact that the cavalry action is described with the generic term 'fighting was with spears' which also might indicate that the various units were differently armed, but that is certain anyway, because it included 'Tarantines'.( "most of which were shattered" might be a clue that most of these were 'long lances'/xysta) ......

The entire action is described in Diodorus’ “generic” terms. Thus we have “many had fallen” and “the battle continued for a long time on equal terms” as well as the bravery of the leaders. All normal Diodoran descriptions and set up for the usual Diodoran favourite: the calamitous turn of tyche that would see the downfall of one: the elephant debacle. That formulaic description aside, Diodorus enumerates the cavalry troops that form Demetrius’ left wing. It is only the guard that he goes on to describe as armed with the xyston, the Companions not being included in that and described separately. They may have been armed similarly but Diodorus, for some reason, elects to set aside the guard as so armed.

[John Conyard]

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.

The second picture seems to show a cavalry using his spear in two hands, with a shield strapped to his back. The shield has a central boss, suggesting it is normally held by a handgrip. The spear has a good butt spike. This image looks fairly clear.

I’ve never been sure that the Kinch tomb shows anything other than a light spear. Perhaps they ran out of wall plaster…..

You can ride with an aspis, resting it on your shoulder and your thigh. You can hold the reins in your left hand and ride around easily enough. I’ve just being doing it. But when fighting you move your body around, and the shield makes this difficult. And there is no saddle to help your stability. As Giannis suspects a lighter shield would be easier to use. Kite shields are easily carried and can be used to direct the horse by pushing it in the right direction. Like long Roman shields, they can be carried partially resting on the left foot.

I would like to say that on foot I find the DSC shield easy and comfortable to carry, despite its weight.

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: