Coragus' Sarisa

[Paralus]

Really, I probably just need to accept that some things were used in a ceremonial, rather than practical, sense. Kind of how it makes little sense for the Old Guard of Arlington Cemetary to field old-style, non-automatic rifles when there are more modern carbines out there.

I don’t think you’re too far from the point there (pardon the pun). The lonche bearers are inside: the somatophylakes and the paides basilikoi. The hypaspists likely surround the pavilion or palace and guard the entrances; always with “the” Macedonian weapon.

Phylarchus (whose point is more the pomp and decadence of Alexander’s court in its final year) has 500 Silver Shields (hypaspists) in attendance upon him. Sounds a little like a pair of lochoi.

For instance, what about the Pages who guarded Alexander's sleep chamber? Were they equipped with sarissae also?

Ahh...unlikely. The lonche if anything.

How much use would a sarissa be if the attackers were from within Alexander's army and the pages/guards were unsuspecting? If they came closer than six feet and then drew their swords wouldn't sarissae be useless?

It is more than logical that the hypaspists were in “full uniform” or kit on guard; that would mean the xyphos as well as full amour.

It is, I suppose, not likely that the king will have been assaulted by a small army in Babylon. Likewise any would be assassins would need to find entrance past a lochoi or more of hypaspists and then deal with those guards inside. They will have had to deal with those somatophylakes on duty as well.

Paralus earlier mentioned that Coragus might have been holding a 6.5 kilo sarisa at its balance point in his left hand, and I took him to mean that Coragus was holding it horizontally at his side.

Which he might well have done. Or across in front of himself. Either way, butt spike to the front or to the left, swing 'round right and...Hello folks! And what's in it for the infantry? (mind you, I’ve not gone to find a sarisa-like lump of wood to try it)

Now if a considerable length of the sarisa projected behind Coragus on his left side, it might be a rather awkward chore to get the thing over to his right side. And then it would be an even more awkward chore to chase someone around and try to stick him.

Which is the whole point of the "story". What’s the point you’re pursuing with all this?

[Archimedes]

[Don't know about the academic approval but the Greek is sarisais (sarisae/sarisas); sarisan (sarisa)

Here's a link to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon entry.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... 3D%2393328

[Archimedes]

mind you, I’ve not gone to find a sarisa-like lump of wood to try it

I've gone into a building supply store several times, pulled down a 16 foot, 1 1/4 inch diameter pine pole, and hefted it around a bit. I quickly came to the conclusion that although a pike that long would work well in massed formation, it would be a poor choice for single combat.

What’s the point you’re pursuing with all this?

From one of my earlier posts:

This is what I'm getting at--that weapons lighter and shorter than the cumbersome infantry sarisa may nonetheless called sarisa by virtue of the fact that they were longer than other shafted weapons. In other words, Coragus might have showed up with his cavalryman's xyston, which by virtue of its being several feet longer than a dory was dubbed as his "sarisa."

[Paralus]

In other words, Coragus might have showed up with his cavalryman's xyston, which by virtue of its being several feet longer than a dory was dubbed as his "sarisa."

Well, as I've argued above, it would make little difference at all if he fronted with the postulated "cavalry sarisa" as it is supposedly 15' long. Diodorus though is clear in his Greek: tên Makedonikên sarisan - "the Macedonian sarisa".

It is clear, to me, he meant the Macedonian sarisa; not the Macedonian cavalry sarisa/long xyston.

[Paralus]

Indeed, the infantry really does not seem to have played a role until the assault on the stranded, surrendering mercenaries - Arrian himself refers to the hippomachia, which is to say cavalry battle at the Granikos.

It is an entirely “wretched” tradition that has come down to us in relation to the Granicus. Arrian would have it that the Persians mustered 20,000 horse and as many infantry. This might well be so; we are not ever going to know. Despite Arrian’s breadth of description, his focus is entirely on the king, his cavalry and his heroic “duels”. These are almost in the form of an ancient Near Eastern motif for rulers.

It has long been recognised that the description provided by Arrian of this battle is militarily ridiculous. I do not think that too strong a word. Conversely that of Diodorus, rudimentary and unsatisfactory in it own way as it is, is much more militarily sensible. It is most often dismissed on the grounds that it is alone in this view and that the tradition, as Agesilaos has observed, is thought not reliable. Arguments abound in that regard.

That aside, it remains a fact that if the Persian satraps did adopt the “strategy” assigned them by Arrian, the only conclusion one can come to is that they posessed no tactical acumen in the slightest. Given they – and Memnon – had been resisting Parmenion’s advance troops up until now that somewhat beggars belief.

Diodorus is not alone in his mention of the infantry though. Plutarch who, in this as some other things, would seem to be his “own tradition” mentions them too. Plutarch’s description of the battle, for the greater part, follows that of Arrian – though Clietus saves Alexander with his spear rather than kopis – with a mattering of the Diodorus tradition thrown in. He is clear on the infantry though:

Plut. Alex. 16.12:
While Alexander's cavalry were making such a dangerous and furious fight, the Macedonian phalanx crossed the river and the infantry forces on both sides engaged.

This makes much more sense than Arrian’s infantry-free battle. Somewhere between Diodorus’ crossing upstream in the night followed by a battle on the one side of the river and Arrian’s Companion (and other right wing ) cavalry only battle lies the truth. We’ll never know though.

Interestingly Diodorus adds that the king won a palm for his heroic efforts and the Thessalian cavalry ran “second”. The Thessalians were on the left under Parmenio. Arrian’s account would have them on the other side of the river and taking no part.

Again, in his close focus on the “heroic” young Macedonian king in his first Asian battle, has left the infantry’s role to afterthought. The left exists only in dispositions.

[agesilaos]

I concur on the state of the tradition around the Granikos but Arrian is representing Ptolemy/Aristoboulos here.

To make sense of the Persian dispositions one only has to posit a riverbank which inclines up to the bed, a common enough formation and one I believe Hammond observed at the site. They would then either have to line the bank, as described, in order to use their javelins or surrender the high ground. Nor were they unaware off the weakness of such a position for they were relying on the attack of a second line made up of their crack troops directly upon Alexander when he was still struggling over the bank, disrupted by the initial vollies off javelins. This is not such a bad plan, and but for Kleitos may well have succeeded.

Once Alexander had broken the crack Persian regiment which included many of their leaders the rest of the cavalry simply fled and then the battle comes down to the massacre.

Plutarch's infantry crossing must come after the flight of the cavalry since they were disposed in front of the mercenaries and he describes the advance being infantry against infantry. Conversly it may be thet the second wave came from in front of the mercenaries and that charge stripped their front ; the Persians were clearly not as numerous as Arrian says and Plutarch had used Aristoboulos for the attack accross the river so may well be of value here.

Of the left nothing is heard but given Diodoros' habitual lauding of the Thessalians I'd not make that a straw with which to build any bricks. I find his account unconvincing and Arrian's possible.

[Paralus]

I concur on the state of the tradition around the Granikos but Arrian is representing Ptolemy/Aristoboulos here.

And Ptolemy is likely in the royal hypaspists or Comapanion cavalry here. His view of the battle, one thinks, will have been Alexandro-centric at best. As for Aristoboulos, It is doubtful that Arrian relied on him for battle narrative in general.

Once Alexander had broken the crack Persian regiment which included many of their leaders the rest of the cavalry simply fled and then the battle comes down to the massacre.

This is the "meme" I have problems with. It supposes that the only incident of battle was around Alexander. I doubt it severely. It is the same meme for most battles but this, as the first, must be the most heroic.

I agree the numbers are exaggerated (Persian). It still remains somewhat inconceivable, to me, that one would hold such a bank with cavalry. The only thing the cavalry can do if Alexander forces a crossing, if the Arrian dispositions are correct, is retire. I will have held it with infantry. Had the infantry given ground the cavalry will have swooped and loosed their javelins.

[Phoebus]

Personally, I think Arrian's numbers are right (if not the exact unit breakdown; that is, I think there were 20,000 infantry... but not all of them were mercenary hoplites), as is his description of the Persians' disposition.

It's nothing but conjecture, but I think Alexander figured he had nothing to lose by stealing a march to the river in battle formation, hoping that the Persians would not be ready--on account of guessing the Macedonians would not be able to give a fight after a day's march. As a result, (I think) the Persian cavalry was holding the bank because they were the first of their forces to get there.

[Paralus]

In essence, I think the cavalry was holding the bank because they were the first to get there.

Yes, that might be true. It appears, given narrative, that the Persians had time on their side though: they chose the battle ground and so I'd think this was how they'd planned it.

There is some merit to Agesilaos' observation but, all things considered, the narrative that Arrian gives of the battle is concerned only with Alexander. The rest may as well have stayed at the Hellespont.

[Phoebus]

Yeah, like I said, it's just a feeling that I have.

I can see Ptolemy & co. "forgetting" to mention that their quick march in the late afternoon caught the enemy with his pants down. In a weird way, I think this ties into the tale about Parmenion urging caution: a kind of perverse jab by Ptolemy, who would have known that the old general's advice was solid... and that they had been fortunate with the way the cards were dealt.

[Archimedes]

Diodorus though is clear in his Greek: tên Makedonikên sarisan - "the Macedonian sarisa".

Interestingly, Ovid mentions a "Macedonian sarisa" being wielded by a centaur in Metamorphoses 12.466:

Qui clipeo gladioque Macedoniaque sarisa
conspicuus faciemque obversus in agmen utrumque
armaque concussit certumque equitavit in orbem
verbaque tot fudit vacuas animosus in auras:

Conspicuous for his Macedonian lance
and sword and shield, facing both sides--each way,
he insolently clashed his arms; and while
he rode poured out these words in empty air.

Does anyone know of any other references in Greek or Latin to the phrase "Macedonian sarisa"?

[Archimedes]

Gig 'em, Coragus!

[pritamsingh98]

Has there ever been any evidence that pointed toward the sarissa used as a dual-purpose weapon? That is, using the full weapon as needed in pitched battles and storing away the lower half when on guard duty or when fighting requires a more flexible weapon?

[derek]

Yes, that's how I'd imagined the sarissa would work, because it would have been far too unweildy for anything but the most set-piece battle. They'd have unscrewed the middle, attached the butt point to the end of the front half, and then stored the back half and the metal middle joint in barracks or the back of a wagon.

Derek

[rocktupac]

Has there ever been any evidence that pointed toward the sarissa used as a dual-purpose weapon?

I have come across a few references that show the sarissa being used in various ways other than in the traditional 'close order' sarissa-phalanx:

1. In the battle of Raphia, Ptolemy and Antiochus began the battle by sending whatever elephants they had at one another. The riders wielded sarissas, and as they got close to one another they struck at each other, wounding many (Polybius 5.84.2).

2. During a siege in Ambracia, the Romans are unable to successfully make an assault on the walls of the Aetolian's city so they take to digging a mine underground. They dig for many days and nights, but the Aetolians dig a mine of their own to meet and repulse the Romans. Polybius writes: "On meeting, they first of all fought underground with their sarissas" (21.28.11). He later notes that this was unsuccessful so the Aetolians filled a jar with flammable objects that would create large amounts of smoke. They pushed this jar, guarded with sarissas on either side, into the Roman's mine and literally smoked them out (21.28.14-16).

3. When the elephants of Perdiccas were attacking a fortification of Ptolemy's in Egypt called "the Fort of Camels" (Diodorus 18.33.6), Ptolemy himself was defending the walls. Wanting to inspire his troops and lead by example, Ptolemy grabbed his sarissa and "put out the eyes of the leading elephant...and wounded its Indian mahout. Then, with utter contempt of the danger, striking and disabling those who were coming up the ladders, he sent them rolling down, in their armour, into the river" (Diodorus 18.34.2).

I understand the sarissa in all the examples is still being used as a stabbing/piercing/thrusting weapon; and it is not explained if the sarissa was separated into halves (although it probably wasn't in these three cases), but I thought these examples were interesting in that the sarissa was still considered a valuable weapon of war outside of the sarissa-phalanx.