On the Sarissa

[amyntoros]

I have been ruminating for a while now on the construction of the sarissa. The description accompanying photographs of the point, sauroter, and connecting socket of a sarissa in the catalogue for the Alexander exhibition at the Onassis Center (2004) has this to say: GÇ£ Since the total length of the sarissa in the fourth century B.C. was, according to ancient sources, about 5.5 meters, the length of the wooden shaft must have been over 4.5 meters. If made as once piece, a shaft of this length would have bent and had a greater probability of breaking. It is likely, therefore, that it was made of two poles of wood that were joined together with the help of an iron connecting socket, such as the one here, which still preserves traces of a pole inside. Such a socket would have been a useful reinforcement at the most vulnerable point.GÇ¥ (These are the same items as shown in the Search for Alexander exhibition, by the way.) Minor M. Markle III, in his article Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 10 (1982), when discussing the exact same items said this: GÇ£This weapon consisted of a sarissa-head, but-spike, and iron sleeve. The purpose of the metal sleeve is unknown, but the close correspondence of its diameter with those of the sockets of both the sarissa-head and butt-spike indicates that it fitted on the wooden shaft of the sarissa. Though it was tentatively identified by Andronikos as a coupling sleeve, it is much too short to support the weight of two halves of a sarissa: its length is only about 16 cm. Perhaps it was placed in the middle of the shaft as a handle, a convenient balance mark . . . GÇ£ So the belief that the sarissa was made of two pieces of wood, an idea predating MarkleGÇÖs article, still survives over twenty years after he challenged it. Now, even if the sleeve was longer, surely two pieces of wood permanently joined together by a sleeve wouldnGÇÖt make the weapon any stronger or more stable than if it was placed in the middle of one long shaft? Does anyone know of any more recent articles on this topic, or have any opinions to share? I believe it also been expressed that the sarissa was made in two pieces so it could be dismantled for traveling, although I donGÇÖt know if this is supported outside of forum discussions. Continued. . .

[amyntoros]

I remember a forum member in Australia (or was it New Zealand?) who was involved in the recreation of a Macedonian Phalanx, but thus far I know of no one who has attempted to exactly recreate a sarissa according to the archeological findings and then test it out on a training field, probably because it would involve too many experts for a subject of minor interest GÇô experts on archaeology, history, battlefield technique, and even a blacksmith who specializes in ancient weaponry.For my own part, itGÇÖs fairly obvious that I donGÇÖt have a huge interest in the actual battles of AlexanderGÇÖs army: IGÇÖm more curious about social aspects such as how they transported and cared for these weapons. Logically, it would be much easier if the sarissa was dismantled into two pieces, but logic also says that it would then be unstable in use. Even the tiniest space between shaft and sleeve, necessary to insert and remove the shaft, would allow for wavering at the end of the sarissa given itGÇÖs great length; and frequent dismantling would certainly loosen the shaft over time. But if the shaft was one, long piece of wood, how did they carry these whilst on the march? If transported individually it might not have been be too difficult when traveling across open plains, but such weapons could only be a handicap to the individual when traversing areas such as the Hindu Kush. I would presume then that the weapons were kept in the armory and transported accordingly. Is there even a reference to the use of the sarissa by foot soldiers after Gaugamela? Perhaps in India? Even if not, I would think that the weapons accompanied Alexander on his move eastwards as he could not have known in advance that he wouldnGÇÖt have use for them. And then of course, there is the slightly shorter cavalry sarissa which likely remained in use throughout the whole campaign,HmmmmGǪ. long post on a small topic. Sorry about that. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[ruthaki]

I don't know much about the actual construction of the sarissa but if you've seen the display around the statue of Alexander on Buchephalus in Thessaloniki, they have both shields and sarissas surrounding it. Rather impressive weapons!

[Nicator]

Greetings Linda,
I'd disagree that the iron sleeve wouldn't have made for a stronger weapon. The sleeve, if I understand correctly from your description, joined both ends of the sarissa together around midpoint. This connector, assumed to be female to female, would provide three distinct advantages. 1. The wood would slide into the iron and thereby create one long piece of wood out of two shorter pieces of wood. The mechanical advantage gained by this would be that each short piece of wood would benefit from increased rigidity in a shorter length. I.e...the tensile and yield strength would be far greater than one long piece of wood. You would literally multiply your mechanical advantage 2x. This would be even more necessary considering the weighted counterpoise at the butt end of the shaft. This counterpoise added stress at the midpoint of the shaft, or in the very least, at the point that the shaft would have been held (the fulcrum). 2. The soldiers could construct a sarissa from comparitively smaller trees and branches found along the march, thereby enabling them to more readily manufacture their weapons in the field. 3. The length and strength increase garnered by such an innovation would allow the phalanx that wielded it to dominate any adversary. In answer to your side question about whether or not these weapons were in use after Guagamela, the answer is in the definitive yes. The sarissa was used to great effect at Hydaspes. Here the weapon was increased in length to deal with the elephants. You can only imagine the reasons. The height of the beasts, the elevation of the Mahouts, and the desire to put a little bit more distance between them and the hoard were strong motivators.
later Nicator

[karen]

I've cogitated about this myself and I see a clear reason for making an 18' spear out of two 9' pieces of wood rather than one 18' one.
You want the shaft to be pretty much the same diameter the whole length of the weapon -- and that is what the pictures show. Now imagine a tree tall enough that at the height of 18 feet, its trunk is the diameter you want. What's the diameter at the base? Three or four times that, perhaps. That means carving away, and wasting, a lot of wood to get the right diameter. This is much less the case with two 9' lengths.
Not only that, but I just googled "Cornelian cherry," which is the type of tree sarissas were made out of. According to a couple of websites, they only grow 25 feet tall, max, so that probably most trees would be too small to provide an 18' length of wood of sufficient diameter, considering that the very top of the trunk is, of course, a twig.
The metal coupling-piece would be made as small as possible, so as to minimize weight -- as the things would have been heavy enough as it was. It wouldn't take too much length of metal if the wood was precisely fitted into it.
(I'm going to do a sarissa training scene in my book with a unit of men who are new to the use of the weapon. They are ordered to level sarissas and hold them steady. Then the right-most man on the first rank has to recite a line of the Iliad... the man to his left has to recite the next line of the Iliad... and so on through the whole unit. You aren't allowed to a) let your point drop or waver, b) forget or hesitate with your line, or c) recite it with anything less than total panache, betraying no hint of exhaustion or shakiness in your voice. Needless to say this develops arms of steel and great discipline!)
Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

Thanks, Nick and Karen, for your thoughtful responses. Unfortunately, I'm still bogged down with the thought that the sleeve is too short to be an effective method for securing a joint - just a little over six inches in length! I suppose much depends on how the two lengths of wood might have been joined together - if they were each slid into the sleeve or if it was forged around a joint. I suppose I shall not be convinced unless someone attempts to accurately recreate the weapon. :-)With best regards,Amyntoros

[Nicator]

Linda,
If you can post the pic or an address to it I'd be better able to give it an engineering analysis. I was thinking that a female to female ended joint would have to be a minimum of around 6 inches in length to effectively join the two lengths of wood together. If you get much shorter than that, you would overstress the ends of the sarissa, thus creating a weak point. The longer that connector is, the better the sarissa (but heavier and more expensive). Keep in mind that making metal back in Alexander's day was a far more expensive proposition than today. Philip would have used the bare minimum to get the job done. Allowing 1 inch in the middle of the connector and 2-1/2 inches of female connector on either side would work, provided the sarissa was not too fat (thick in diameter). later Nicator

[karen]

I wondered about replicating them myself, and my first thought was that Oliver Stone's crew must have done it for the movie... unless they just ordered a whole load of 18 foot dowels and wrapped the metal around the middle.Re weight of the coupler -- there'd be a trade-off in terms of stability, between the length of the piece and the thickness of the metal sheathing. If I were a Makedonian engineer, I'd go with thickness... so as to make the coupler more likely to keep its shape while being bashed around in battle, transit, etc.Awaiting Nick's engineering analysis...Warmly,
Karen

[Nicator]

Hello Karen,"I wondered about replicating them myself, and my first thought was that Oliver Stone's crew must have done it for the movie... unless they just ordered a whole load of 18 foot dowels and wrapped the metal around the middle."The sarissae in the movie were short and evidently made of one piece. Stone admits this in his voiceover, but doesn't say why. I believe it was to get them in the shot as Alexander trotted up and down the line. "Re weight of the coupler -- there'd be a trade-off in terms of stability, between the length of the piece and the thickness of the metal sheathing. If I were a Makedonian engineer, I'd go with thickness... so as to make the coupler more likely to keep its shape while being bashed around in battle, transit, etc."I'd venture to say that the quality of the metal was sub-par, but good enough to get the job done. You wouldn't see the same coupler twice. Each one would be custom made by hand with some kind of an ancient smelting set-up and then poured into some kind of ingot and then hammered into some kind of shape over some other metal bar for a mold. I'm obviously not an expert on ancient metal making (or modern for that matter), but you get the general idea. These things were likely made of varying lengths and brittleness. Sometimes they might bend, or break altogether. This was primitive metal making...conducted way before the modern era of precise temperature during smelting and controlled cooling and drawing that the modern man enjoys. To be sure that it maintained some kind of usefullness during battle it must have been slightly oversized in thickness. later Nicator