Just a thought!

[davej]

Sorry to all the none military Historians, Like Susan (I hope you son is well). I don't want to go on about Sarissas but it is my interest area and the debate on the forum is getting a bit thin and stale. In Markles article in the AJA 1978 he states that the Sarissa had a some sort of coupling arrangement mid way. Purpose unknown. Dickson (Author of size is'nt everything lenght of Sarissa); catchy title. says that there was no reason to join two pieces of timber to make a single Sarissa.I dont beleive this. The question is when is a Sarissa a Sarissa. is the 5.5m monster of the Hellenistic age a mutation of the original, and was it a multi purpose. (bear with me). If you unscrew a snooker cue to use just the top bit is it still a cue or a half cue. So if we take into acount that a 5.5 or 4.5m spear would be an absoulute bitch to carry, would'nt it make sense to break it down, like a pool cue. An if you have a multi purpose spear would that fir in with economical military philosophy. So all this consider if the court weapon was a broken down sarissa it is possible that Clietus was killed by one as Arrian suggests. Taking into account the way in which spear, javelin and Sarissa are intermixed through out the sources it seem likely that some confussion rained.Your thoughts??????????

[Nicator]

Dave,I didn't read that particular article on the sarissa, but it is an interesting insight into the tactical minutae side of the infantry. To me it makes good sense that the sarissa be broken down for easier transport, and you can be sure that Philip II also had this in mind when he put the phalanx together...later Nicator

[dean]

I agree that this sounds like a VERY feasible answer. The sarissa could then have been the weapon that killed Kleitos.
I would certainly like to look into the military area of study regarding the Macedonian war machine.
Words like Phalanx, Hoplites and Hetairo(I don't know if it is spelt correctly) are still beyond me.One thing I do know is that the Macedonian army was extremely well organized. And while we're on the subject I was looking at an analysis of the battle of Issos just the other day and couldn't believe the amount of Greek mercenaries- we are talking of thousands of men, on the side of Darius. Well truth be told, old Memnon was a mercenary from Chipre, I think. But what surprised me is how these guys could be so unpatriotic, fighting against their own Greek and Macedonian brothers.(I suppose Darius paid very well for their services) Anyway- take care folks, Dean.

[John]

Dean,Be careful! You're coming dangerously close to firing up the dreaded Greek/Macedonian debate here.I could imagine that the Greeks didn't have such a problem fighting with Persia against Alexander because they didn't really appreciate being defeated at Chaironeia.John

[smashedpumpkin]

indeed i believe that you thoughts about the broken down sarissa. I mean the army walked for thousands of miles into persia, i dont think they would have been to happy to have had to be controlling a 5-6 metre long spear. Although i belive that breaking it up would have made it weak if there were many joins, this would mean that at most i think 2 or 3 joins would have been made. this would be crap to carry also as there would be a bunch. Maybe there were vehicles used for the sole purpose of carrying the spears. They would have had carts to carry the wounded, maybe the sarissa's had one join, it was taken apart and loaded onto a, for example, three metre long wagon. Thats what i think!

[yiannis]

Well, when it comes to mercenaries and patriotism one has to understand that the latter had a far different meaning in ancient times. Nations in Europe (in the current meaning of the word) were formed only in the 18th-19th century. The ancient Greeks owed loyalty primarily to their city-state. Even in the times of the Greco-Persian wars there were cities (Argos, Thebes etc) that either remained neutral or even sided with the Persians (ok after their territories were occupied by Persians-Macedonia,Thessaly, Thebes etc). They were not considered to be traitors by the victorious cities but they were requested to pay up to 10% of their income because they didn't took part in the war effort. Greek mercenaries were traditionally the backbone of the Persian army. Especially after the Greek-Persian was. It's the same as football. If a football player from a traditionaly opponent team plays extremely well in a derby between the two teams then in the next season the other team will buy him of. Remember Figo, from Barcelona to Real.
And, yes Darious paid very well :-)Regards,
Yiannis

[davej]

ev,As far as I am aware there is only one join, half way down to shaft. Markle claims it was for holding. But I disagree, to use a sarissa due to it length and weight it was held at 1/3 mark around 2m from the butt spike i.e nowhere near the half way coupling sleeve. The only problem I have with my theory is I can't find and documentation on the bloody thing to see if it has fastening holes or provision for raw hide. Something else to consider is this. At 5.5 or whatever meters long it is a difficult Item to repair. If you break one in battle, surely they wouldnot have thrown the whole thing away. Unlike a hoplite spear you could'nt have you servent carry a couple of spares. The Macedonian army did not have such luxuries. This I believe adds weight to my arguement. But I am listening.

[yiannis]

Your theory surely makes sense. I just wonder how could they make a joint solid enough to hold the pieces of the sarissa together. Could it be a broad metal ring that was used for that purpose? Are there any references or pictures? I've never heard of any so this is based only in assumptions that I must admit are logical.
It's a pity that we can never be sure.
The weaponry of the Macedonians (and Persians) is a really interesting topic that has not been given the attention that it deserves. Regards,
Yiannis

[agesilaos]

I believe some Ptolemaic tomb paintings depict the 'joining piece' in yellow ochre representing bronze, but I'll have to look up the references.However, rather than a joint I would have thought this was a reinforcement to the long shaft which would otherwise shiver upon impact, whereas we know fom Livy that the phalanx presented an impenetrable hedge of points ( unless the terrain disordered it). This, as much as the extra length might account for its superiority to the dorou or Hoplite spear, which frequently broke in the first clash.Another consideration is that even half a sarissa would not make a good thrusting spear its point of balance would be too far forward lacking, as it must, any butt-spike. The full sarissa was doubly counter-balanced with a stone shoe like a coit on the butt-spike (Polybios).If Philip or Alexander wanted to re-equip some troops for lighter work they would just send them off to the munitions waggons to pick up some purpose made javelins or spears, and perhaps even shields. I think it would be more cost-effective to provide the right tools for the job than attempt a compromise-weapon.Also Plutarch uses 'longche' for the weapon that kills Kleitos i.e a short stabbing spear that may be thrown, such as Roman Imperial auxilia used (the same weapon which pierces Jesus' side in the NT) so not everyone thought it was a sarissa and I suspect it is in the story more for the fact that it is a specifically Macedonian weapon than that it could have been the actual culprit.So I would suggest that the metal tube re-inforces the shaft at the point of maximal stress to prevent shivering.

[Nicator]

Karl,I've never read anything about the pike having a joint either, but if it did, it would make sense to me in that transporting the thing would be greatly simplified. I would think that Philip would have worked out the kinks in the design of the joint to ensure its reliable use in battle. Of course, this is just conjecture. Another thought that occurs to me is that sometimes a suitably long pike may not always have been available, and in that case, a joint would allow for its fabrication...in the field. I'm inclined to agree with you on the point of the Cleitus murder. The use of a sarissa is just not practical, and a spear is much more likely. The end of the sarissa had an iron point well over a foot long, and proportionally dimensioned in thickness. It was meant to be rammed into a formation of men bearing shields with a suitable force to puncture the front line. I doubt Alexander had the physical strength to wield such a weapon with enough force to penetrate another humans body (one on one, where the victim could move back as it came in). Another thought comes to mind, in that Alex apparently? threw it like a spear (somebody verify this point), and I'm sure that Cleitus would have had enough time to dodge it had it been a big cumbersome pike being lofted into the air. However, a spear from close range could find its target, and penetrate easily, either rammed in, or thrown.
later Nicator

[ev]

Dave, i agree, there must be only one join. Although i have no proof i began to think how i would carry a sarissa if i had one. I cant think of a way. I mean i might be able to team up with someone and we could carry one end of each of our spears but that would still mean we would be two metres apart, thats if we took them apart. I fone of those broke i think you just picked up the biggest bit, sharpened the end and mooved into a part of the Phalanx formation that didnt need such a long spear. Also, what makes it hard to imagine is the terrain they covered with the bloody things, imagine walking over the Amonus mountains with a five metre long stick! not only heavy but unbelievably awkward! oh well maybe we will never know! anyway ill keep looking i want to find out now!

[agesilaos]

For the most part the sarissai would be carried with the baggage when approaching action they would be carried over the shoulder, Polybios mentioning that it was no easy taskthrough wooded terrain the pike could be grasped at its head and trailed as the did during the rennaissance

[davej]

I thought about dragging the sarissa, it just is not practical, if you think about it a man trailing a 5.5m spear would mean the guy behind would have to be at least 6 m behind him. An army of 10,000 marching 10 abreast would stretch out to be 6 km long if my calculations are right. They could be carried aloft I suppose, it would be unusual to take sarissas on anyhting but a road it is an infantry not a skirmishing weapon. So it would be rarely ever have to encounter bushes our trees.