Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

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?

That is plausible perhaps, and one would think that experiments with length may well have taken place, especially among Greek Armies trying to counter Macedonian dominance. It is curious that seemingly Polybius alone should mention “16 cubits” – on the face of it a rather unlikely length, so much so that later writers avoided this figure ( see above previous posts) evidently preferring other writers. So what made Polybius think that in a bygone age the ‘sarissa’ had been of such a length ?

He clearly indicates that there had been a change in sarissa length: that he has the “original” correct is another matter. To 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.

I believe the answer lies in this anecdote of Polyaenus [Stratagems II.29]:-

“At the siege of (Macedonian) Edessa, [by Pyrrhus in 273 BC] when a breach was made in the walls, the spear-men, whose spears were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line not to use their weapons, but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. When their spears were seized in this way, the men retreated; but the second rank, pressing upon them, either took them prisoner, or killed them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus, the long and formidable sarissa was rendered useless, and became rather an encumbrance, than a dangerous weapon.”

Polyaenus is obviously drawing on an earlier history for this incident – and I think it possible that this unknown history is the source for Polybius’ belief that earlier Macedonian ‘sarissae’ had been 16 cubits.
However, the point of the anecdote is to contrast the ‘shorter’ spears ( sarissae? ) of the Epirotes with the ‘longer’ ones of the Macedonians, and it is easy to see how exaggeration may well have crept in to heighten the contrast. Another possibility is that this might be correct, and an example of the ‘experimentation’ in the generation or two after Alexander that you have postulated. Certainly modern experiments would seem to demonstrate that “16 cubits”/25 ft is too long, heavy, and cumbersome to be effective……

The “sainted” Conolly aside, we seem only to be able to “trust” Polybios when he accords with your own views.

Clearly untrue since I was simply reporting Connolly’s views as set out in the JRMES article.
However, I would agree with him that a 25 ft or more long ‘sarissa’ is just not practical or feasible, and the weight of evidence is against it, but see above. Which is not to say that Polybius didn't certainly believe that this was so. But Polybius, reliable as he is and faithfully passing on earlier information, is also capable of being mistaken.
Nor do I regard Connolly as “sainted” – he has made mistakes, some of which I have drawn attention to on this forum, as do we all. However his views are always worth reading, and anyone studying Greek and Roman warfare will find his work indispensable.

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.

Further to my earlier comments on this, I think the reason Diodorus doesn’t bother to mention the armament of the “Companions” is obvious. Philip and Alexander’s “Companions” pioneered the use of armoured cavalry armed with the ‘xyston’, and the term ‘companion’ and ‘xystophoroi’ are synonyms for this type of cavalry, with the distinction being that ‘xystophoroi’ are cavalry ‘armed like companions’. Thus the Guard Cavalry were armed 'like companions, as xystophoroi'. To say something akin to “the Companions were armed as Companions/xystophoroi” would therefore be a clumsy redundancy – readers would know from the term “Companions” how they were armed, and it would only be necessary to mention their armament if it differed from the norm. D