agesilaos wrote:The strory of this duel is not in the reliable tradition it belongs instead to the more dramatic fantasy concocted by Kleitarchos and I would place no faith in its details.
That may well be true. I have no issue with it being a nice story or based on some sort of reality.
agesilaos wrote:The author (whom I reckon Kleitarchos since I believe that Diodoros XVII is essentially a paraphrase of his work and the duel is there) has armed Corrhagos with a sarrisa simply because that is the Macedonian weapon par excellence the same way possibly the same author has Alexander run Kleitos through with one and then attempt to turn it on himself.
I’d think the ‘turning on himself’ bit was a dramatic flourish – one might well assume that Arrian might have included that detail in his efforts to excuse his hero. The use of the sarisa in the deed is a little more difficult to dismiss.
Arrian relates a detailed and clear description of the murder. He only varies in it ultimate conclusion: the two descriptions of his end which are provided by his sources. In the first Alexander grabs a
lonche or
dory from a
somatophylake and runs him through. In the second Alexander grabs a sarisa from one of the "ordinary" guards (
hypaspists) and runs him through. Whichever is the correct end to the story is not really relevant: the details in each are though.
Then his companions were no longer able to restrain him; for according to some he leaped up and snatched a javelin from one of his confidential body-guards; according to others, a sarisa from one of his ordinary guards, with which he struck Clitus and killed him
.
He goes on to relate that Aristobulus does not go into the drinking but relates that the
somatophylake (Ptolemy) drags Clietus out and he returns later:
Aristobulus does not say whence the drunken quarrel originated, but asserts that the fault was entirely on the side of Clitus, who, when Alexander had got so enraged with him as to jump up against him with the intention of making an end of him; was led away by Ptolemy, son of Lagus the confidential body-guard, through the gateway, beyond the wall and ditch of the citadel where the quarrel occurred. He adds that Clitus could not control himself, but went back again, and falling in with Alexander who was calling out for Clitus, he exclaimed: “Alexander, here am I, Clitus!” Thereupon he was struck with a sarisa and killed.
It seems to me, reading as written, that Aristobulus is in the sarisa camp. The
hypaspists, it would appear, stood guard with a sarisa – at least in Aristobulus’ mind. Markle (in
Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in Art V10, 1982) acknowledges this argument by Bosworth and then proceeds to dismiss it via the “ceremonial” weapon argument.
agesilaos wrote:There is really no need for the so-called 'cavalry sarrisa' posited by M Markle I think, this weapon is the xyston of the sources cf. Arr I 15 v ; it may be objected that since there was a body of cavalry called the sarrisophoroi they must as 'sarrisa-bearers' have borne sarrisai; this is fallacious, however, they are actually the prodromoi or 'advance scouts' (runners ahead) sarissophoroi is probably a contemporary nickname and reflects not the fact that they carried sarissai but that their spears were longer than those of the other light cavalry 'That's not a spear it's a goddam sarrisa!' even though it was only a xyston.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this. There are frescoes depicting Macedonian cavalrymen with a longer
xyston that is usual. They appear to have a ‘join’ or ‘grip’ near to centre. It is difficult to ascertain accurate lengths but, as you suggest, something a little longer than the hoplite dory (say ten or twelve feet) would do. Thracians had been using something similar since the late fifth century as did Iphicrates’ mercenaries.
Although passionately argued, Markle’s cavalry sarisa of some fifteen or more feet would be a mongrel on horseback. The Companion Cavalry’s chief weapons were the somewhat longer xyston and the kopis. The later will have been the basic weapon after the xyston forced the breach I’d suspect.
agesilaos wrote:I am pretty sure that it is this story that makes Lane-Fox suppose that the sarrisai had been abandoned - wonder what the Macedonians in the mixed phalanx were meant to use then (and that formation comes from Aristoboulos) - similarly it leads Nick Secunda to posit double armed phalangites (useful on a wargames table but insane on a battlefield.
Many operations would have been conducted with javelins, such as storming walls, and the sarrisai would have remained with the baggage.
Yes: that is plain from the sources. The sarisa armed infantry will have assaulted fortifications with the
pelte and the
lonche – possibly several. Coenus
aesthetairoi certainly did not carry sarisae onboard the assault ships with the siege towers. Ditto the
hypaspists. I would argue that the
hypaspists were cross-trained 'professional' troops and that the
pezhetairoi reverted to the lonche/pelte of earlier days when not sarisa-armed in pitched battle.
As to Lane-Fox, I admit to being perplexed. Diodorus is clear in his description of Jhelhum. Here the infantry even up (isorropus) the battle with the elephants with
tais sarisais – the sarisae. He adds that other infantry are making good use of the
lonche. It is possible he has slipped though the use of the long pike – with its concomitant reach – makes eminent sense against the elephants and their mahouts.