Macedonian Soldier Stele

[MeinPanzer]

...since I have argued that the KinchTomb artist copied the composition of the 'mosaic' source, I would have to agree that it really only represents a 'single' source - but it is arguably our most 'realistic' source. Incidently, if we restore the sarcophagus 'xyston' of Alexander overhand using Connolly's balance point of 30% along the shaft from the rear, unsurprisingly it works out at roughly 12-14 ft.

It works out to 12-14 feet - depending on where you determine the head of the weapon to be, just like the Kinch tomb.

'Wrong' in what sense? His point that we can't read too much into Polybius words, especially regarding a bygone time where he is quoting an unknown writer, seems valid to me,

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 think, at any rate, that a further discussion of Connolly's non-practical conclusions would be fruitless, given that his proposal that Theophrastus' and Polybius' sarissa lengths are actually the same has been shown to be wrong whether the other literary evidence relating to the sarissa is taken into account or not.

especially since we have this "16 cubits" ( since the writer is unknown we can't even begin to guess whose cubit is being referred to - if for example, Athenian 487 mm, then 26 ft/7.7m, if 'Polybian/Macedonian' of 417 mm or so, then a more reasonable, but still rather long, 21 ft/6.6 m). We have this on the one hand, and all the evidence of the other sources, of mediaeval/renaissance pikes, and of modern reconstruction on the other. Where, in all military history, is there evidence of a real pike possibly some 26 ft/7.7m long actually being used ?

Given that Polybius quotes it in the context of his own measurement, I think we can take it with some certainty that the reckoning was in Macedonian cubits, especially given Polyaenus' mention of Macedonians carrying 16-cubit sarissae. Again, this is not some isolated number because Polyaenus, too, mentions it. Whether they were directly drawing on the same source, or there were a number of authors who mention 16-cubit sarissae, there is no reason to doubt that the original source was contemporary, especially given the fact that we are missing so many histories and military manuals of the Hellenistic period. As for the comparison with later pike use, it is a useful guide, but by no means conclusive. To accept only the range of length in use among medieval or Renaissance pikemen is to deny the possibility of historical anomalies.

Perhaps in this instance we can find consensus in agreeing that:
" almost all 'sarissae' were likely to have been between 18 and 21 ft long (5.5 and 6.4 m)"?

I'm afraid I can't make any declaration of how long "almost all" sarissae were; given that we rely on a handful of authors who give drastically different lengths for the same weapon relating to a period of time which stretched some three centuries and armies ranged from Bactria to Epirus, I think it would be folly to do so.

...I have no trouble at all in agreeing this, and that a holistic approach should be adopted.... D
The problem lies in "weighted appropriately", for it is clear that it is in this aspect that we differ, with you leaning toward taking the literature literally, and I toward Connolly's practical/functional approach for where, as here, the literature gives too broad a range which it is nigh on impossible to choose between, and hence is inconclusive. It is purely a difference of emphasis, and as it now appears, even then we can approach something like consensus/probable resolution.

Firstly, I am not for taking the literature literally, only for reasonably accounting for its variances. 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.

As to the literature giving a "broad range" of figure, it is almost as if perhaps over centuries of use among competing Hellenistic factions the sarissa was adapted to various needs and so changed in size... If so, why is it necessary to "choose" one right figure?

...Happily not in this instance. As was referred to in the "Weight and grip of the Sarissa" thread a few months ago, Connolly made both a cherrywood (close to cornel) and a seasoned Ash sarissa, the former weighing 4.050 kg the latter 4.22 kg (8.9 lbs and 9.3 lbs) - a difference of just 0.4 kg/6.4 oz.

Perhaps I'm missing this, but where does he refer to his ash sarissa and the results of its testing in the JRMES article? He only mentions cherry wood.

...in some instances you are right, and re-enactment can certainly lead to demonstrably wrong conclusions, but I think it is going a little far to suggest that a 'trained cavalryman' then can do what a 'trained modern horseman' now cannot. That sounds a little like the old 'men now are not the men of yore' myth. Most of those 'trained cavalrymen' in Hellenistic armies, were, as far as we know 'part-timers' ( except for nomad steppe horseman) who would hardly compare to modern professional horsemen in skill - but I don't want to start another debate on that ! Re-enactment/reconstruction has as many pitfalls as other forms of evidence, but is nevertheless valuable , particularly for separating the possible from the impossible....

Macedonian cavalrymen from before the time of Philip II would have grown up riding all the time, whether hunting, training for war, combating the numerous invasions of their homeland, or conducting campaigns abroad. Their experience with their weaponry, and especially actual combat experience, would have been far more extensive than any modern cavalryman - and that is not to disparage reenactors like our own John Conyard, but merely a statement of fact. In adapting to new enemies and novel military developments, the sarissa or xyston very well could have been pushed to extreme lengths in order to attempt to gain an advantage (or, adversely, could have been shortened), and if a cavalryman or a phalangite would be forced to adapt to such a weapon, then with proper training we have no idea how proficient they could have become.

I don't believe so - I prefaced my answer by pointing out that Arrian had 'updated' the Hellenistic manual to include Roman practice. Nor do I think that one should 'take this statement alone'. Arrian's "Of these" means, I think, of the cavalry generally ( not just the unarmoured types) referred to at the start of the paragraph. ( later he uses "of the former variety" when wishing to refer to armoured cavalry alone).

I'm not quite sure I understand you fully, but if you mean to say that the "of these" in the translation I provided of "of these (the aphraktoi), some are doratophoroi or kontophoroi or longchophoroi, and others are only mounted akrobolistai" refers to the whole cavalry, then you are absolutely wrong. The Greek reads as follows (4.1-3):

Kai kataphraktos men .... Aphraktos de he enantia. Touton de hoi men doratophoroi eisin e kontophoroi h longchophoroi, hoi de akrobolistai monon.

Thankfully, one thing Greek does very well is establish dichotomies, and in this case the meaning is crystal clear. Those two words "men" and "de" set up an opposition between the kataphraktoi and the aphraktoi, and the "touton" in the following sentence is used to refer to the closest antecedent, which is the aphraktoi. The reason that he uses "of the former variety" later on in reference to the kataphraktoi is because he has just been writing about the aphraktoi and needed to refer back again to the kataphraktoi.

He specifically tells us that 'doratophoroi'/'kontophoroi'/'xystophoroi' are shieldless, useful for us moderns, but the audience of his own day would know that, for example, 'kontos' armed cavalry didn't carry shields - just as a modern reader would know that a modern U.S. Tank Regiment is equipped with 'Abrams' tanks, and a writer wouldn't bother to say so ( unless they were an exception equipped with something else) - so I think you are making too much of a thing out of the fact that no other equipment is listed in the sources.

As I stated before, he only tells us that those who carry dorata, kontoi, and xysta alone are shieldless - any notion of which of those weapons was or could be carried by the thureophoroi was purely that of the reader. In fact, I would argue that that word "monon" implies that some of these weapons were carried by thureophoroi, but arguing whether xysta were or not brings us back to outside evidence - and then we begin to go in circles!

I also think that your distinction that we are not told what the 'Thureophoroi' carried offensively is a little artificial too - in the quote I mentioned before, it is quite clear that Roman 'Thureophoroi'/ Auxiliary cavalry at least carry 'lanchea/longche', and I should have continued the quote:

"In the service of the Romans some cavalry carry pikes/kontoi and charge in the fashion of the Alani and sauromatae; [i.e. shieldless - iconography also shows that the earliest Roman 'kontophoroi' who appear in Hadrian's time are apparently shieldless]; others are armed with the 'lanchea'. Their long flat blades sword hangs from their shoulders and they carry oblong shields, {thureoi] and iron helmets, a woven breastplate [mail] and small greaves. They carry 'lanchea' for two purposes, to throw at long range when required and to fight at close range, and, should it become necessary to engage in hand-to-hand combat, they fight with their broad swords.They also carry small axes with a circular edge."

i.e. the usual Roman Heavy cavalry of the time - lanchea armed 'Thureophoroi' (c.f. Josephus).

Yes, but this is an anachronistic excursus which is not tied back into the statement before. We can only take it as referring to the cavalry of Arrian's own day, and the statement does not profess to state anything about Hellenistic cavalry - unless we should accept that they also used spathae, for instance!

As to your last statement, we are told that 'Tarentines' ( shielded light cavalry) carry javelins, and that 'long lancers' are shieldless, so we can surely infer that 'shielded lancers' carried something in between - the 6 ft or so 'lanchea', or perhaps an 8-9ft 'lance'/spear.

We are told that:

Tarentines skirmished with dorata (4.5-6).

Some kataphraktoi who did not carry shields wielded dorata, kontoi, and xysta alone.

Some kataphraktoi carried shields.

It does not logically follow that those kataphraktoi who carried shields did not carry dorata, kontoi, or xysta, only that those who did not carry shields carried those weapons alone.

That later, shielded Macedonian cavalry were javelin or 'longche' armed is inferred from the mention of their consternation at being charged by Roman cavalry ( so they weren't armed with 'xysta' or similar 'charge' weapon) referred to by Livy, who also refers to 'spear' armed Aetolian cavalry; and similarly Pyrrhus, who may have introduced shielded cavalry to Greece/Macedonia, is mentioned carrying a shield and fighting with missile weapons.Polybius too, when speaking of the adoption by the Romans of Greek cavalry spears, with butts and shields uses the generic 'dorata'/'spear' (Polyb VI.25.9) - not any of the words for 'long lance'. Indeed, I would be reasonably confident that in all our sources, there is no reference to a shield and long lance combination.

There is no doubt in my mind that some shielded cavalrymen did fight with javelins - there is ample evidence for that among the Antigonid Macedonians, for instance. However, I do not think that there is evidence against longer lances being used like the xyston. And though we do not have any literary reference to a long lance and shield being in use together, we only have a tiny percentage of Hellenistic historical or military literature, and so that only tells us about the limited evidence at our disposal.