sarrisas

[Chas]

Linda, I recalled three articles that should be of interest to you. In the journal Ancient World Volumes VIII, XXIII, and XXV there are three articles by Peter A. Manti on the cavalry and infantry sarissas. He's quite critical and rather snarky of Markle's views.He argues that what Markle called called a coupling sleeve was intended to protect the sarissas shaft immediatly behind the spearhead from being chopped off by enemy swords as German mercenaries sometimes did to Swiss pikes. Also without screwthreads or a bolt would the coupling peice really work? I tend to think the vibration of an 18 foot shaft would shake it loose. Also wouldn't a Macedonian be at a grave disadvantage if the front half of his sarissa stuck in an opponent's body? Hope this was helpful.

[Nicator]

Hello Charles, "He argues that what Markle called called a coupling sleeve was intended to protect the sarissas shaft immediatly behind the spearhead from being chopped off by enemy swords as German mercenaries sometimes did to Swiss pikes. Also without screwthreads or a bolt would the coupling peice really work? I tend to think the vibration of an 18 foot shaft would shake it loose." I wish I could see a picture of this object. I'm really curious now. One look at it should be telling of it's ultimate purpose. I could envision a coupling sleeve made with the hole at some size and the sarissae could be widdled into shape to fit tightly into the sockets. At which point a hammer could be used to impinge the steel over the wood (this seems the most likely). Or another scenario would be a relieved steel sleeve that could be tightened around the wood with a leather strap. Or if the steel was good enough, they could relieve one end of it and spring it open, stick in the wood, and let it pinch back down on the wood. I'm merely pondering the possibilities, and I'm sure there are many many more ways of getting the coupler to work. "Also wouldn't a Macedonian be at a grave disadvantage if the front half of his sarissa stuck in an opponent's body?"
This calls into question the nature of the beast. Was the phalanx designed to rupture and drive through or to stab, jab, and hold? Surely, there were times (in every battle) that the stab, jab, and hold tactic was necesarry. If the phalangyte had to pull the sarissae back to jab then the risk of his point and/or coupler becoming detached come into question. The risk of this occuring was ever present and I imagine each phalangyte paid careful attention to these metal to wood connections before battle. They may have even expected it. There is the tidbit about Alexander getting locked up in battle with broken weapons at the Granicus. He called for another weapon from his groom (Admetus?)and some other veterans (Demetrius or something?)each of whom were also fighting with broken spears and asked him to find another from someone else. The interesting thing about this exchange is that it enlightens us as to the fact that the Macedonians brought extra weapons into battle, i.e...they expected (no doubt from experience) weapons to break.later Nicator

[amyntoros]

Hi Chas, and thanks for the info on the articles. From what you've said here, Manti certainly disagrees with Markle's views on the possible use of the sleeve, however, it wasn't Markle who thought it was a coupling sleeve - that was Andronikos! Markle thought it might possibly be something that was placed in the middle of the shaft as a handle or balance mark. Here he was referring to the cavalry sarissa and remarked that such a sleeve "can be discerned on the sarissa of the Macedonian noble on horseback charging a barbarian on foot from the Kinch Tomb near Naousa." Now, even though Manti has different thoughts as to the use of the sleeve, doesn't this mean that he is also ruling out the sarissa being made of two lengths of wood? Nick, so far I haven't found an image of the sleeve on the web (not even on Beth Carney's site) but I'll keep looking. The best way I can describe it is to say that it is a short tube with a visible vertical join and is slightly fluted at each end. To give you an idea of the size; in the catalogue of the Onassis exhibit the point of the sarissa is described as being 0.51 meters in length while the point of the sauroter is 0.446 meters. By comparison, the sleeve is a mere 0.107 meters! And Chas, now that I'm looking at the images again I'm not sure whether Manti's argument is convincing either. The shaft of the sarissa head is more than twice the length of the sleeve. Why bother to add another short piece of metal to this? I mean, why not make the shaft just a little longer?Sorry to appear to be so stubborn about this. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[Paralus]

G'day all.I'm with Amyntoros here. Well, as much as one can with anyone without seeing the "sleeve" in question.One of the great advantages of Philip's phalanx was the reach of the weapon GÇô the sarissa. The common depiction shows some five sarissae overreaching the front rank of the phalanx. Such "reach" was a decided advantage in battle when the terms of that battle were not unfavourable to the Macedonian phalanx. It was an advantage the Greek hoplite phalanxes were unable (with shorter reach) to counter in classic phalanx confrontation (Issus aside where things were decidedly unfavourable for the Macedonian phalanx).As a personal observation, where I Philip, the last thing I'd want was the possibility of that strategic reach being compromised. Any join in a member compromises the inherent strength of that member GÇô especially if it is not exceedingly well machined. Were it to be held by a bolt/peg we have the possible problem of splitting. As has been raised, the loss of the "operating" (so to speak) end of a sarissa renders the weapon useless. Is it possible GÇô excuse me if this seems silly, again, I've not seen it GÇô this was used for the fitting of the proper counter-weight at pike's end? Just an aside on this issue, given that the sarissaed phalanx's advantages where reach and cohesion, how would one maintain that in battle? Mention is made (in ancient times) of the training that was given the Macedonian phalangite with this weapon. The capabilities of Philip's veteran phalanx (most probably the later "Silver Shields") is pointed up by its maneuvers for Alexander in upper Macedonia. Were the sarissae passed forward when lost/broken to maintain the "hedgehog"?The descriptions of the efforts of the Silver Shields under Eumenes by Hieronymus (the Greek general and historian) serves to indicate what such training achieves. Even at their age GÇô Hieronymus states not a one under sixty and many over seventy GÇô they were able to advance through not only Antigonus' (One Eye's) allied infantry, but also the younger Macedonian levies (formerly of Antipater and Craterus European army of 321). Maintaining that reach must have been a necessary part of that "invincibility".Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Okay, I've finally found an image on the web, but I can't give a direct link because I used Google's book search and you have to be registered as a member. However, if you follow these instructions you should be able to access the page.Go to Google.com and click on the "More" link, then click on "Book Search". Enter the keywords "sarissa coupling sleeve" (without the quotation marks). If you've not already registered with Google you should get a page telling you what to do - it's really simple, requiring only your email address and a password. Once this is done and you access the search results you should see only two hits. The first one should be to page 573 of a book called Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids. There, in all its glory, is a full page photograph of the metal parts of a sarissa. One caveat though - these images are a composite and the parts shown are NOT in proportion to one another. As I said before, the sleeve is less than one half the length of the metal shaft of the sarissa head - and it even appears to be a little narrower. It's a tiny thing when seen in real life and compared with the head and butt spike. I believe that Markle was right in identifying this with the lighter cavalry sarissa and I'm thinking that the ones used by the phalanx might not have had sleeves at all! Also, the size (around six inches) and the shape of it does mean it would work well as a hand-grip, allowing the horse rider to properly balance the sarissa in one hand without needing to look at the weapon.ATBAmyntoros

[Paralus]

Thanks Amyntoros!Now, as James Bond once said: It doesn't pay to go off half cocked. But, having had a look and a read, a number of points (pardon the pun) arise.Firstly the weights are given for the parts as follows:

Spear point - 1.24kg. Butt spike - 1.07kg. "Sleeve" - 0.50kg.The weapon (infantry) at fifteen to eighteen feet long needed to be counter-weighted so as to be held at about a third of its length. The above point/spike weights are then the wrong way around: the weapon would be spear point heavy and a bloke would marching into battle with his pike "arse-up". I'd suggest that the "sleeve" is in fact a movable counter weight. As has been pointed (oops, another unfortunate pun) out, metallurgy was no precise science in ancient times GÇô nothing ever turned out the same twice. My suggestion would be these were applied towards the butt GÇô one or more GÇô and moved to achieve the balance point required (which like a snooker cue, might have had a bit of a personal touch to it?) before crimping?Just a guess.Paralus.

[karen]

Fellow sarisseers --Maybe we should get hold of this gentleman -- http://www.clas.canterbury.ac.nz/ people/parker.shtml -- he appears to have reconstructed one!Or this gentleman: http://www.brianjaycorrigan.com/ scrapbook.html (Scroll down. Pointless for safety reasons, I would think.)Warmly,
Karen

[karen]

What I find interesting is the total weight of the weapon is given as 6.7 kg -- which is about 15 pounds, yes? Quite light, for a weapon of that length. The shaft was quite slender -- not much more than an inch. (Which also makes it easy to wrap your hand around -- when I did karate and we practice with staves we used 1 or 1 1/4" dowling.)So you'd expect it to bend a little when levelled, and that's what the photos of reconstructions that I found do indeed show. I guess artwork showing sarissas (such as the Pompeii mosaic) keep them perfectly straight as artistic license...??Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

G'day AmyntorosJust on the cavalry sarrissa or Xyston, the apparent length of this weapon (according to Hammond) was about nine feet. This equates to the longest of the Greek hoplite pikes which are generally agreed to have been between seven and nine feet. He also describes the "Philip" sarissa as being twelve to fifteen feet long (they did become longer in third century Macedonian armies).As a hoplite spear was meant to be held in one had, the reason for counter-weighing the Xyston must have been due to the weight of the spear point used and ease of handling whilst on horseback.Either way, the counterweight must reflect the shaft irregularities and the weight of the point. A 1.24kg point with a 1.07kg butt spike GÇô all others being equal GÇô will create a balance point nearer the tip than the butt.Paralus.

[jim]

One of the great advantages of Philip's phalanx was the reach of the weapon GÇô the sarissa. The Sarissa certainly had the advantage of extending the killing zone well beyond the traditional Greek Phanlanx spear.The Macedonians sacrafised some armor for the ability to use a weapon that would extend the killing zone thus the offensive advantage. The Roman infantry on the other hand reverted to very heavy armor& sheid and a short sword vrs the long spear.The Spear was more of a throwing weapon and the infantry releyed mostly on the short sword in the killig zone. Through out history the trade off between armor and flexibility still exists to this day.

[Nicator]

Hello Paralus,"As a hoplite spear was meant to be held in one hand"I think the Macedonian pike was intended to be held with both hands, it was one of Philips innovations that gave them an instant 2 to 1 strength advantage in battle. The shield was smaller than the hoplite shield and strapped to allow one arm to clamp in down against the body while both hands held the pike. Just thought I'd mention it. I can't get that web page to load with the pic?later Nicator

[Paralus]

G'day Nicator.Yes, I'm aware that the sarissa was a two handed weapon. It was held somewhat side-on and the shield (pelte) was strapped to the top of the arm. Thus GÇô as opposed to the traditional hoplite phalanx GÇô the Macedonian version had a somewhat "offset" look to it. It also lacked the "shield wall" of the hoplite or "shield bearer" units. Reach then was the crucial factor. To give that up meant close quarter fighting and the Macedonian phalangite was in no way equipped for that (see Issus, Cynoscephale and Pydna).Two hands would not have removed the need to balance the weapon. Looking at the weights of the identified metal pieces, the spear point well outweighs the butt. The object of the sarissa was to extend the "killing zone" as Jim so nicely puts it. Or to outreach the opposition as I stated earlier. The generally accepted idea is that the sarissa was held no further from the butt that a third and possibly less. It therefore, with the weight GÇô in this instance 1.24 kg GÇô of the point, needed a counter balance. Without such, it must have become rather difficult to handle over the course of battle maneuvers. There would be enough to worry about in battle other than the fact your pike was nose heavy and a royal pain in the ar$e.I don't see that possible advantages of a two piece sarissa GÇô aside from portage GÇô outweigh the disadvantages. What would happen were one to lose a butt piece or visa-versa?The sources are replete with descriptions of battle preparations and whereas they may describe the donning of amour, the Spartans oiling their bodies and combing their hair, etc, there is no description of the sarissa being assembled. Not that it should I suppose GÇô many other inanities are not spelled out. I just wonder again if this is not a counter weight "collar". "Wider at either end" does not inspire confidence in a join that will withstand battle?Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Catching up on the posts here - thanks for all the input! First of all, ParalusGÇÖ suggestion that the sleeve might also have served the purpose of an adjustable balance-weight (as well as a hand grip and marker) makes sense to me. ItGÇÖs also been remarked that the sarissa was a two-handed weapon, but the cavalry version was not! GÇô and tomb paintings have been found that show both the sleeve and butt-spike on the cavalry weapon. Now could it be possible that the infantry sarissa had neither? I was trying to recall where I had read something about this, so I went back to MarkleGÇÖs lengthy article and found what I was looking for:GÇ£The butt-spike, corresponding closely in weight to the sarissa head, served as a counter-weight to the heavy forward point in order that the weapon might be balanced. Such a counterweight was more useful when the forward point was heavy. Consequently, the lighter sarissa-heads are found without butt-spikes. These lighter sarissae were, I believe, carried by the infantry: in the tightly packed formations of foot soldiers the danger was great that men in the rear ranks would be jabbed in their stomachs by the back parts of the sarissae held by the men standing in front of them, and this experience would be less damaging if the lance butts were not tipped with sharp iron points. For cavalry, however, which charged in less dense formations, the butt-spike, besides being a counterweight, had two other functions. It served both as a support by which the lance could be implanted against the ground so that a charging horse could be transfixed by falling upon the point without the rider holding the lance being unseated and as a spare point in the event that the sarissa-head should be broken off. GÇ£Maybe itGÇÖs just me, but I find an undeniable logic to his argument, although it does bring us back to the issue of the phalanx sarissa being made of one long piece of wood (now being considered as weighted at one end only), and the potential of the wood bending. However, it doesnGÇÖt seem to be a problem in the photographed recreation that Ruth linked to GÇô plus, I once read somewhere that the soldiers in the rear of the phalanx balanced the sarissa on the shoulders of those in front to gain more stability. (That may have been an idea put forward by a modern writer rather than an ancient source GÇô I canGÇÖt remember.) Anyway, if the longer infantry sarissa did *not* have a sleeve, then it is extremely unlikely that the sleeve was used on

[amyntoros]

Anyway, if the longer infantry sarissa did *not* have a sleeve, then it becomes extremely unlikely that the sleeve was used on the cavalry sarissa to join two separate pieces of wood.IGÇÖm still surprised that AndronikosGÇÖ suggestion that it might have been a coupling sleeve has become unquestioned GÇ£gospelGÇ¥ and anything said to the contrary by Markle, Manti (or others?) has been ignored. While I was searching the web for images of the sleeve, every single article, book or website that I examined in detail still treats AndronikosGÇÖ theory as an absolute fact. After all, Markle does say that Andronikos GÇ£tentativelyGÇ¥ identified the metal piece as a coupling sleeve. I know. . . I know. . . having posed the question in the first place IGÇÖm right back where I started. Best regards, Amyntoros

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros.Andronikos also "tentatively" identified tomb two as Philip's (II). It too quickly became accepted gospel.I too would prefer not to become the receptacle for some forward phalangite's but spike! Makes one wonder doesn't it? Makes sense on a hoplite's seven to nine foot pike to have a rear spike GÇô these mostly were used in a downward (throat) stabbing motion. Not something ever likely to be attempted with a sarissa.The cavalry pike at about nine feet would need some countering rear weight so as to enable its reach to be employed. Unlike in Stone's film, the xyston was the weapon of choice for the Macedonian cavalry, not the oft-portrayed sword swishing.The description in the book you link to does not inspire confidence: "wider at each end than the centre". Sounds like a double-ended candlestick holder! Problem is, we aren't exactly jamming wax candles into it, rather wood. It's not a complication I'd like to have in my major battlefield weapon advance.Again, as remarked to Nicator, yes the sarissa was designed as a two handed weapon. Even so, two handed weapons of fifteen or more feet need balance if you going to clamp your two hands at about the four to five foot mark (from the bottom).As to the wood bending, that would depend on the rigidity of the wood. As Well, we have about a metre of the sarissa taken up by both point and butt in the example shown. That leaves about three and a half metres of wood (about 11' 8'') GÇô if it were fifteen feet (about 4.6m). Probably not as much flex as one might think.Paralus.