Archimedes wrote:So how long is your 6.5 kilo sarisa, and where along that length is the balance point?
Given the original question, I’m assuming you are in the “cavalry sarisa” camp. I might well be convinced one way or the other but, on the whole, am with Agesilaos. So let’s then address a couple of posts here.
The length of the sarisa under Philip and Alexander is generally agreed to have been between fifteen to eighteen feet; this based on Theophrastus and Asclepiodotus. This has then led various moderns to postulate that 1) front ranks used a shorter sarisa and rear ranks a longer; 1) the sarisa varied over it development from shorter to longer or vis versa; 3) the 15’ sarisa represents the cavalry sarisa.
I would subscribe to the second as the first I find passingly strange and an over complication of what should be simple. Minor M Markle would be the champion of the last of those.
Over three articles –
The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor;
Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon and
Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander The Great – Markle argues for (amongst many other things) the cavalry sarisa and claims its first use was at Chaeronea; that the
hypaspists were hoplites; that the infantry sarisa was likely not used until Alexander The Great and did not have a but spike. Interestingly Markle observes that Theophrastus’ description of the
longest sarisa being 18 feet indicates there were shorter ones. He then only ever addresses the 15’ “cavalry sarisa” as
the shorter
one
The literary support for this argument can be summed up in Arrian’s description of Granicus (1.15.2, 5 & 16.1). Here Arrian ascribes the success of the Macedonians to their long cornel wood spears. Whereas the first of these does indeed refer to the cavalry attack (as likely might the second) the latter sounds suspiciously infantry like. Arrian’s description is not the best and were we to take him on first blush, the infantry (aside from one company) seems to have stayed on their side of the river until it was time to slaughter the Greek mercenaries. I’d suggest that the Persian centre giving way was due in no small part to the cornel wood of infantry sarisae. Either that or Alexander won the battle with the Companion Cavalry on his own.
The art argument devolves down to the Kinch tomb, the Alexander Mosaic and the Alexander Sarcophagus (as well as numismatics – the odd Bactrian coin). The first two have been discussed. The latter clearly indicates a long spear being wielded by Alexander. This can be seen by the holes for the original (metal) spear. The other horseman (Perdiccas / Antigonus??) is wielding the same sort of spear. Markle estimates that the length of both these forward spear ends – and the spear in the mosaic – at about 2.25m (7’4”). He then doubles this to state that they are cavalry sarisae of 4.5m (about 15’).
Again, I’d find a spear of fifteen or more feet a difficult thing to handle riding bare-back. I’d be more convinced by a counter weighed lance – or lengthened xyston – of some twelve feet where the balance point was at the four to five foot mark. This leaves reach without the extra weight and length. It might well explain those “lighter” sarisa heads unearthed in the tombs of Vergina.
As to the question at the top? The longest sarisa – eighteen feet – has been computed (in Markle’s articles) to weigh 6.2kg (14lb). The “cavalry sarisa” to 5.35kg (12lb). Corrhagus – if he is wielding a “cavalry sarisa” – is saving himself having to deal with an extra three or so feet and two pounds.