Macedonian shield

[MeinPanzer]

I thought Connolly or someone dismissed the idea of the coupling through experimentation. The weight of the pike head and shaft would pull itself loose...
Johnny

I seem to recall such a thing as well, but I can't find any specific source for it. Waldemar Heckel in his recent Osprey Warrior publication on the Macedonian soldier perpetuated the two-part sarissa theory. Apparently he did some field testing of his own with it, but I haven't been able to find any sources for that, either. He came to speak at my university about two months ago, but I unfortunately was not able to speak with him to ask him about it.

[Sean Manning]

Cornel is wild cherry, as far as I know. It is supposed to be strong end tough, and was widely used for spearshafts in antiquity, although I know nothing precise about its properties. Arrian 1.15.5 states the the lances of Alexander's heavy cavalry were made of cornel-wood.

1) The Issos mosaic shows one sarissa for more than half its length, and we don't see a coupling sheath. The spearheads on the sarissae in the background are also small and thin, not large.

I agree with most of what you say in your recent posts, but have one objection here.

The Alexander and Darius Mosaic depicts no unambiguous sarissas. The spears in the background are probably the lances of Persian cavalry. (See Nylander, Carl. "The Standard of the Great King- A Problem in the Alexander Mosaic." in Opusculata Romana 14 (1983) pp. 19-37; Cohen, Ada. The Alexander Mosaic: Stories of Victory and Defeat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Diodorus Siculus 17.53.1 for Darius III's rearmament of his cavalry with lances).

We don't know whether Alexander wields a sarissa or a xyston in the mosaic. Alexander's lance in the mosaix 7.5-8 feet of weapon before his hand, so could easily be as short as 12 feet or as long as 16 feet. I think that 12 feet would be a longish xyston, but too short for a sarissa, although I am far from expert on Greek cavalry arms. Since the left third of the picture is lost we can't tell how Alexander's weapon was gripped.

(As a side note, does anyone know of any clear source that any of Alexander's cavalry other than the Thracian prodromoi used the sarissa? Markle's main evidence here has been rebutted by Paul Rahe).

[MeinPanzer]

Cornel is wild cherry, as far as I know. It is supposed to be strong end tough, and was widely used for spearshafts in antiquity, although I know nothing precise about its properties. Arrian 1.15.5 states the the lances of Alexander's heavy cavalry were made of cornel-wood.

Sekunda addresses this- he says that cornel was used for smaller spears, and apparently was good for making javelins. The famous palta javelins of the Persians were always made of cornel wood, and were left with the bark on.

I agree with most of what you say in your recent posts, but have one objection here.

The Alexander and Darius Mosaic depicts no unambiguous sarissas. The spears in the background are probably the lances of Persian cavalry. (See Nylander, Carl. "The Standard of the Great King- A Problem in the Alexander Mosaic." in Opusculata Romana 14 (1983) pp. 19-37; Cohen, Ada. The Alexander Mosaic: Stories of Victory and Defeat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Diodorus Siculus 17.53.1 for Darius III's rearmament of his cavalry with lances).

I agree that it's not clear cut, but those spears are far too large and long and well arrayed to be Persian cavalry spears. Darius lengthened the cavalry spears, probably in the Macedonian style, after the Granicus, but those seem much too long. A much more likely identification is with the Macedonian phalanx.

We don't know whether Alexander wields a sarissa or a xyston in the mosaic. Alexander's lance in the mosaix 7.5-8 feet of weapon before his hand, so could easily be as short as 12 feet or as long as 16 feet. I think that 12 feet would be a longish xyston, but too short for a sarissa, although I am far from expert on Greek cavalry arms. Since the left third of the picture is lost we can't tell how Alexander's weapon was gripped.

I've always heard that it was a xyston, and I agree that it seems a bit too short for a sarissa. I think the idea of cavalry bearing sarissae has been criticized quite a bit lately, anyway.

(As a side note, does anyone know of any clear source that any of Alexander's cavalry other than the Thracian prodromoi used the sarissa? Markle's main evidence here has been rebutted by Paul Rahe).

Unfortunately, no! There are very few images showing Alexandrian cavalry that I know of.

[Anonymous]

Connolly features the pipe-joint in "Greece and Rome at War" but describes it as "possibly" used to join two parts of a sarissa. If it is just a tube, with no thread or holes for nails or rivets, then I can see why people would doubt that it is a joint.

[Sean Manning]

I agree with most of what you say in your recent posts, but have one objection here.

The Alexander and Darius Mosaic depicts no unambiguous sarissas. The spears in the background are probably the lances of Persian cavalry. (See Nylander, Carl. "The Standard of the Great King- A Problem in the Alexander Mosaic." in Opusculata Romana 14 (1983) pp. 19-37; Cohen, Ada. The Alexander Mosaic: Stories of Victory and Defeat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Diodorus Siculus 17.53.1 for Darius III's rearmament of his cavalry with lances).

I agree that it's not clear cut, but those spears are far too large and long and well arrayed to be Persian cavalry spears. Darius lengthened the cavalry spears, probably in the Macedonian style, after the Granicus, but those seem much too long. A much more likely identification is with the Macedonian phalanx.

Nylander has found several reasons that they cannot belong to Macedonian troops. In particular, they are intermingled with a red standard which originally bore a clear eagle and resembled other Achaemenid art. Achaemenid generals each had a personal standard, so one would be a natural element of the mosaic. The mosaic of the banner was less damaged when discovered, and several contemporary drawings show more of the design than is visible today. The shafts also appear close, and there is no particular sign that the Persians are turning to respond to an attack from two sides at once. (They do seem to be milling about in confusion somewhat). The shafts also face the wrong direction to be Macedonian, although some have developed elaborate theories of a flanking movement or see the spears as a vague, distant symbol of imminent defeat (Sekunda).

I agree that there are problems with identifying the shafts with Persian lances (or the spears of some Persian cardaces or other Achaemenid infantry?) but personaly I find the theory to be the most plausible one.

As a side note, one of my professors has mentioned a study purporting to prove that Macedonian sarissas would bend too much if made in one section, and that a sleeve would reduce the bend substantially. Given what has been said above in this thread, I expect the experimenters picked wood grown the wrong way. Does anyone know what study he was talking about?

Edit: MeinPanzer, could you give us a citation for that article by Sekunda, if it has been published? I'd be interested in reading it and have access to a university library and interlibrary loan.

[MeinPanzer]

Nylander has found several reasons that they cannot belong to Macedonian troops.

Sekunda references Nylander, in particular "C. Nylander, The Standard of the Great King "Opuscula Romana XIV," 1983, Vol. XIV, p. 19-37.

In particular, they are intermingled with a red standard which originally bore a clear eagle and resembled other Achaemenid art. Achaemenid generals each had a personal standard, so one would be a natural element of the mosaic. The mosaic of the banner was less damaged when discovered, and several contemporary drawings show more of the design than is visible today.

I agree that the standard is Persian.

The shafts also appear close,

Which is no indication whatsoever of position in a painting that foregoes most of the rules of perspective.

and there is no particular sign that the Persians are turning to respond to an attack from two sides at once. (They do seem to be milling about in confusion somewhat).

This is a moment of great pathos, and it would be only natural that the Persians would turn to their king as he is driven from the battlefield. I see no problem with them looking to their king being driven away even as the Macedonians bear down on them.

The shafts also face the wrong direction to be Macedonian, although some have developed elaborate theories of a flanking movement or see the spears as a vague, distant symbol of imminent defeat (Sekunda).

Again, considering the lack of real perspective, it seems like this was some sort of artistic addition to emphasize the impending defeat of the Persians. It need not actually reflect the real happenings of the battle.

I agree that there are problems with identifying the shafts with Persian lances (or the spears of some Persian cardaces or other Achaemenid infantry?) but personaly I find the theory to be the most plausible one.

Well, we'll never know either way!

As a side note, one of my professors has mentioned a study purporting to prove that Macedonian sarissas would bend too much if made in one section, and that a sleeve would reduce the bend substantially. Given what has been said above in this thread, I expect the experimenters picked wood grown the wrong way. Does anyone know what study he was talking about?

I think it might have been the one below. There was also an article about Connolly and his appearance in full kit, including sarissa, at a show of some sort in an older Slingshot. I might go look it up, but I don't remember any major revelations coming from that article.

Edit: MeinPanzer, could you give us a citation for that article by Sekunda, if it has been published? I'd be interested in reading it and have access to a university library and interlibrary loan.

Here's the article I'm talking about:

Nicholas Sekunda, "The Sarissa", in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis: Folia
Archaeologica 23, 2001" pp. 13-41.

And this is one recommended to me by Duncan Head but which I couldn't get a hold of (this is the only issue of JRMES that my university library system didn't have!):

Peter Connolly, "Experiments with the sarissa - the Macedonian pike and
cavalry lance - a functional view" in "Re-enactment as research: Journal
of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol. 11, 2000" (ed. A T Croom and W B Griffiths)