Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

I take back my use of the word wrong in this case, as Connolly makes no claim to have discovered the ultimate solution to the sarissa question. However, his analysis of the literary evidence is all but useless, not only because his calculation of the Macedonian cubit contradicts other solid evidence and because it is based on extremely shaky logic, but also because he declares that he, "not being a classicist," is not interested in those philological discussions which "are of "little practical relevance" and the discussion of which has been "fruitless," and yet he goes ahead and draws on Polybius' statement anyway, simply ignoring his declaration that the sarissa used to be 16 cubits in length. [...] I am rather opposed to Connolly's approach, which is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore all inconvenient literary evidence in favour of sweeping conclusions based on two literary references and extremely limited practical tests.

Indeed. It is most inconvenient that Polybios chose to write in his native language: (ancient) Greek. Any discussion of his text must proceed from that as does Walbank's commentary. To choose to ignore the philological evidence is to invite error. One might as well attempt to understand Chaucer via modern English and usage only.

To quote General Chang: "You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon"

Happy New Year all...

[John Conyard]

I’ve had various guests staying since before Christmas and have spent more time in the kitchen than on the computer. But a friend did tell me an amusing story.

At a big international archaeological conference considering the nature of the Roman army a fire alarm sounded in an underground lecture theatre. Over one hundred people headed for the fire exit.

The historians arrived at the exit and started debating the nature and history of the sign “Fire Exit”. The etymology of the word was considered, the style of lettering and its historical use. Some of the more portly historians got stuck in the doorway. History showed that not all fire exits lead to safety and a debate ensued.

Some art historians started considering the artistic probabilities of the sign, its use of colour and size. Perhaps the wording and meaning were constrained by the small size of the “canvas”, and a cultural identity formulated back in Classical Greece. The hidden iconography was considered and added to the debate.

A few archaeologists, but surprisingly few, were present to add their findings to the debate on the Roman army. Stuck in a crowd of historians they would not be drawn on the probable meaning of the sign “Fire Exit”. They were unwilling to jump to any conclusions about the sign, preferring to try and identify those who had been sitting near the sign and form them into a sort of “community archaeological group”. The ritual significance of the sign was discussed, and a conclusion reached that such signs were the focus for smoking and sexual rituals performed on the periphery of society.

There were just a couple of reconstruction archaeologists who voiced an opinion that it would be a good idea to walk through the “fire exit” since in their experience such signs generally lead to safety. However the few people that were listening to them started to ask them what they were doing at the conference and did Dungeons and Dragons have a future.

In fact the sign had been covered up by a large metal “Fire Exit Closed” sign, but this had been stolen by metal detectorists and so the exit was completely without context. After the event, in the bar the historians and the archaeologists both in their different ways believed that their views had been upheld, while the reconstruction archaeologists had started making lots of “Fire Exit” signs, all with the word “closed” written upon them.

This debate has considered the issues around written and artistic evidence, and even some of the issues around recreating the cavalry lance. But I still want to make a few points.

The Issus mosaic certainly shows Alexander holding a xyston, and other interesting aspects of Greek equipment. It’s an excellent heroic artistic composition, using a minimum of colour. And it would be churlish of me to concentrate on the artistic evidence for the use of the long lance when there are so many other, largely eastern, illustrations of lance armed cavalry from later periods. By chance I was looking at the Sasanian “battle mural” from the House of the Frescoes at Dura, which shows mounted lancers mirroring Sananian royal reliefs. AD 3rd century admittedly, but there is a body of artistic evidence showing the use of the long lance, generally two handed, although sometimes one handed like the huntsmen from the Mount Nebo mosaics, and without large shields.

I have little time for the suggestion that ancient riders could do what modern riders cannot. But I do have considerable time for debates about the type of horse and tack used in any period, and how we try and recreate the riders of the past. As with the reconstruction of equipment any reconstruction can never be a 100% true reproduction. The materials used may differ slightly, and the modern artisan will have a different artistic appreciation than his forebear. However the reproduction of an artefact can sometimes be useful in understanding the techniques used in its construction. And for me the major interest lies not so much in the reconstructed artefact itself, but how it is used and how it functioned. So reconstructing the kontos is good, trying to use it from horseback is more interesting.

After the Greek cavalry debate last summer I made an ash 2.7m tampered spear. At the head the spear shaft is 25mm diameter, and at its widest point 38mm diameter. The weight is 2.4 kg. I would compare this to my other “heavy” parallel-sided ash spear of 2.4m long, which weighs 1.5kg. This is my first foray into making tampered spear shafts, although I have many different types of tampered arrow shafts which all have differing characteristics. I enjoyed axing out the shaft, and it didn’t take long to get a good finish.

The tampered spear is a heavy killing weapon. The extra amount of wood increases the weight, and makes it harder to use. The tampering does help the balance to a degree, but it is the heavy weight that dictates the heft and use of the weapon. And this is a heavy weapon.

I find it hard to be definite about what is the most important feature of using weapons on horseback. The speed of the horse is certainly vital, and a whole host of variables must be taken into account. The cross section of the weapon will ensure penetration or a broad cutting action. And modern reconstructions of weapons and armour are very rarely made using the same techniques and materials as originals. They differ in hardness and sharpness. The same blade can be used by two individuals with greatly differing results, depending on their strength, the angle of cut, and the response of the target. Rather than just hitting the target with the blade, which often causes it to bounce off, the sword edge needs to be drawn deeper into the wound with a deliberate cutting motion. Generally targets will back away at the moment of impact, reducing the momentum of the weapon. Armour that may seem adequate generally does not protect the eye sockets, or the toes.

But generally I consider the speed of the horse, the weight of the weapon and muscle power behind it. Primarily riders really just need to concentrate on riding, letting their horse do the work. They need to deliver their weapon accurately on target, and if possible put some power behind the blow. The weight of the weapon will help, but a light sword used with power works as well as a heavy weapon with no muscle power, since the real force depends on the speed of the horse.

I agree with Paul that weapons of and over 4m are used without a large shield, but would suggest to reach their full potential you need to use them two handed. You can carry a 4m long lance in one hand. You can hit a target with it using one hand. But to use it well, accurately and powerfully you have to use two hands. Unless of course you are Alexander the killer of men, who can use one, and disdain a helmet.

But I have my doubts over the idea of a light sarissa moving over time to a heavier kontos with a larger diameter. The diameter of lance head sockets don’t vary that much, and while this may not account for some form of tampered shaft, I still find it hard to accept a large difference between the weapons. I appreciate some see the sarissa as having a Greek or Hellenistic origin, while others see the kontos as having a more eastern origin. But as a late Roman I am familiar with Procopius calling cavalry spears doru, as opposed to the smaller infantry spears he calls by a diminutive word, doration. Agathias calls the long cavalry lance the sarissa, while Maurice uses the word kontarion. But kontos, sarissa or even doru, it is weight and size that dictates function, and we are considering a long lance, used two handed for accuracy and power, without large shields. I’m now heading for the fire exit.

[keravnos]

I agree with Paul that weapons of and over 4m are used without a large shield, but would suggest to reach their full potential you need to use them two handed. You can carry a 4m long lance in one hand. You can hit a target with it using one hand. But to use it well, accurately and powerfully you have to use two hands. Unless of course you are Alexander the killer of men, who can use one, and disdain a helmet.

But I have my doubts over the idea of a light sarissa moving over time to a heavier kontos with a larger diameter. The diameter of lance head sockets don’t vary that much, and while this may not account for some form of tampered shaft, I still find it hard to accept a large difference between the weapons. I appreciate some see the sarissa as having a Greek or Hellenistic origin, while others see the kontos as having a more eastern origin. But as a late Roman I am familiar with Procopius calling cavalry spears doru, as opposed to the smaller infantry spears he calls by a diminutive word, doration. Agathias calls the long cavalry lance the sarissa, while Maurice uses the word kontarion. But kontos, sarissa or even doru, it is weight and size that dictates function, and we are considering a long lance, used two handed for accuracy and power, without large shields. I’m now heading for the fire exit.

Here is a Hiero II coin (of Syracuse), depicting one of his heavy horsemen...


and another,


The date is around 220ish BCE.

They both wear linothorakes (colored in vertical stripes probably) and evolved corinthians/ pseudocorinthians/ apulocorinthians. (names vary)
What does not vary is the way they hold their lance/xyston.
I have no doubt that Eastern/Steppe troops would use the xyston with both hands, but the Greek way was what you see, depicted in those coins. Seeing that they are late in the Hellenistic age (the tentative end for that age is 146 BCE), what they are depicted as doing was probably a military axiom, aka use the left hand to guide the horse, hold the xyston with the right at its balance point.

Steppe horsemen's way of riding involved "hugging" the horse with their leggs, their feet pointing down balerina style, and their legs becoming deformed as time passed by (by that stance of horse riding). Even to this day the descendants of the Alans at Ossetia tip toe dance, a potential excercise to strengthen their feet in order to become better horsemen. They would learn early on to ride without hands so as to be able to shoot their arrows (being predominantly Horse Archers). Later on when the lance/xyston was used to kill off enemy Horse archers probably, they would deffinitely use both hands for it, like they would do were they using both hands as Horse Archers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllx_hcHUuQ
They effectively controlled the horse with their feet, therefore they could spare both hands for the xyston. Different depictions of ancient riders are an illustration of that difference, I think. Steppe horsemen or those taught by them would ride the Steppen way, everyone else would ride the Greek/Roman way or rather European way, a way that would necessitate at least one hand to steer the horse.

Greek style of handing the horse was with the hands and the feet were secondary. This evolved to the style all Europeans use today, probably everyone. stirrups eliminated the need to ride in the old fashion. Ironically, it is very probable that Sarmatians developped the stirrup, precisely to be able to ride like everyone else, sitting on the horse, rather than hugging it with their feet, while on the same time having effective control of the horse, to be able to shoot arrows while riding.

[John Conyard]

I liked the dancing. I may take it up instead of yoga. I need something to keep my muscles working.

You can find various bits of iconogrpahy showing riders carrying the lance and the kontos, one handed. I don’t deny it. I just maintain you use a kontos with two hands.

I think it is dangerous to underestimate the capability of riders in any period. Or assume the capability of any particular breed of horse.

Horses are directed by weight distribution, leg pressure, verbal commands and the bit in the horse’s mouth held by the reins and bridle. Every horse needs different degrees of direction. Some can be directed using balance alone, although this can be difficult when using weapons in the saddle. Spurs can be used to magnify leg pressure. I can sense I rely heavily on verbal commands and tone of voice, which generally works with all animals and my two sons. I like a horse that responds to leg pressure, which is actually easier to apply when in a four horned saddle than when in a stirrup-less steppe saddle.

In this period snaffle bits not unlike a modern bit, were standard with on occasion the potentially severe curb bit. The Romans could also use the hackamore to increase leverage on the horse’s jaw. Various metal examples have been discovered, yet many more could have been made of leather or even dried grass leaving no trace. A simple hackamore would have no bit, and the 1st century tombstone found in 2005 in Lancaster seems to show a bitless bridle. This system is useful for young horses, or those with sensitive mouths and I find it hard to believe earlier cultures did not use them. The rider has to learn to neck rein, using one hand to control the horse by exerting pressure on the horse’s neck with the reins, or even at times his shield. A long weapon can also be used to give direction to a horse, and I use my kontos to guide the horse around an arena.

I am not a great fan of classifying anything, and certainly not ancient riding styles. I suspect the only groupings were those who could do it, and those who couldn’t. No doubt some could pretend to ride, and some could ride really well. But I don’t like classifications. I any cavalry melee there will come a time when it is useful to drop the reins and use balance, leg pressure, and verbal commands.

In the 4th century the steppe saddle was introduced into the west by the Huns and their allies. It is a simple and strong design. It is possible that some saddles were built with a one piece wooden tree, but reconstructions are made of no more than four pieces of wood joined and shaped to transfer the weight of the rider to the horse’s sides. In time this saddle would develop into the medieval saddle and the modern Portuguese and Spanish saddles. The proportions of the pommel and cantle can only be deduced from surviving metal decoration. The earliest such fittings from Europe are a set of early 5th century curved and triangular-shaped gold sheet mounts from Mundolsheim, Alsace. These suggest a very high-fronted saddle, used to display wealth and status. Lower status riders could have used lower fronted saddles, for which rare, small and functional fittings have been found from later dates.

The steppe saddle does not need integral padding and can be left as just bare wood, weighing 6.4kg. It sits on several layers of wool or fur to protect the horse. It does not need breast or breaching straps, although they may be of use over long distances and rough terrain. Coming from a four-horned saddle, the Roman rider is initially concerned about sliding out of the “side door”. They try and hook their legs under the front cantle to secure themselves in the seat, as they would hook their legs under the front horns of the four-horned saddle. But the steppe saddle is not designed for this and the position soon becomes very uncomfortable. Instead the rider must use a straight leg and a very deep seat when cornering. Such a position is relatively easy on the riders legs and can be maintained for long periods of time. But this saddle is a design that naturally benefits from the invention of the stirrup. The rider can continue to ride with a straight leg, but with the addition of long stirrups giving greater stability. They can raise themselves in the saddle to cushion the effect of the movement of the horse whilst engaged in horse archery, important in a steppe culture. And perhaps most useful of all, the stirrup allows the horse to be easily mounted.

I appreciate perhaps more than most the great culture and legacy of the steppe peoples. But when it comes to riding I suspect others were as effective in the saddle.

[keravnos]

Just mentioning that I only wanted to make a distinction, goes without saying that I don't consider Europeans better than the Nomads, primarily because we are all from Nomad stock. I do have a preference were a choice to be made, no doubt, still, there is a grand illusion at play here: That we all pretend to understand what it was like back then, or believe we can know how things were, exactly.

We can't. All efforts we make, end when the screen of a PC goes blank in my case, or when you put on today's clothes in yours. These people lived through all we strive to understand. Things we claim to understand were second nature to them. The very best of us counts as youngborn among them. You see, to us it is a hobby, to them it meant the difference between life and death. Once there, things become crystal clear. Hopefully not many of us will ever get where they were daily.

--the following paragraph is added to let me explain my view...
Had we not known anything about the Ancient Greeks or Romans for that matter (seeing how much in common those two civilizations have) would the shape of present world be different? Definitely, even if they did have their share of atrocities. Would the world really be different today if we didn't know more about a nomad Subtribe? What does the name "Hamaxoikoi" mean to most people looking at it? It is the name given to a Sarmatian Subribe in the first century CE by a Greek Geographer. We don't know more about them. Their contribution to the present day world is minimal. Other civilizations have far more and will have far more influence in our daily lives. I hope this isn't interpreted as demeaning, it isn't, it's just a mention of fact.