Alexander exhibition in Oxford

[marcus]

Here the text is clealry indicating that the phalangites thrust the sarisae though this might just be Diodorus' "take" on the action. I do believe the weapon was able to be thrust and withdrawn else it becomes a single use item and the phalanx merely a useful pinning porcupine. Gaugamela (and Issos) see Alexander using the phalanx in a clearly offensive role rather than a simple pinning force. Although not attested (and so speculation) the possibility that the sarisa could be passed forward is not out of the question. If the one on one fight with Corrhagus is taken as historical then sarisae were a breakable item and so front rank weapons must have suffered during the fight.

Wide, large blades are generally "damage" blades rather than strictly penetrative. Thus many of the larger wider heads are considered by some as hunting as they would be driven home at close quaters. Interestingly Sekunda sees the cavalry xyston as a wider leaf head for this reason - the ability to cause large wounds. Must find that paper of his on the sarisa...

It's weird, but I can access Pothos at work, but sometimes the content filter stops me from replying, so this is coming rather later than I intended.

I agree that the sarissa would have to be able to be withdrawn. Looking at the picture again, I do not consider the blade to be that wide, so I don't have a particular problem with accepting it as a sarissa blade - so long as it's long enough (I shall see when I visit the exhibition). At least the wider bottom of the blade is nicely rounded, which would make withdrawal easier - if it were barbed, too wide or too square, then it would be a problem.

ATB

[spitamenes]

So I was screwin around at work today. And at the job site there were these wooden shafts about 1 inch in diameter and 15 or so feet long. Obviously I had to grab one up and start flailing it around like it was a sarissa. Well it was awkward to say the least. But nothing many hours of intense practice and drill probably wouldn't take care of. It was extreemely top heavy and it took more energy to keep it parallel to the ground than it did holding it up. Because of how far back you had to hold it. (I wonder if they used some kind of stint to hold it in place?). I carried a 12 foot battle flag for drill in the military and we had leather sockets on belts that we used for parades and funerals. But that aluminum pole was nothing like an all wood pike with spear head and buttstock. anyway, my point is, I can easily see the sarissa being used as a thrusting weapon that can be pulled back and reused, instead of a one time use, defensive only, weapon. That's about it...

All the best!
Spitamenes

[Paralus]

To quote Polybios (18.29.2-7):

For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarisae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer...

"So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm;
And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes
In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed
In order: in such serried rank they stood."

And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

The head of the sarisa can hardly have been of the weight that Andrinkos postulates. I'd think it smaller and slimmer.

I have recovered Sekunda's "The Sarisa" from my compromised external hard drive.

[spitamenes]

Do you think all sarissa heads were identical? Or would it be like the shields and armor where the individual soldier had options? I'm betting they were all the same length, For the function of the phalanx as a whole. but we know that the greeks at least were able to customize they're shields with different designs. And wore different helmets and armor. Maybe the blade of the sarissa was something of an individual preference. Or maybe they were all forged from the same mold. I'm guessing there is no mention of this...

[Alexias]

The head of the sarisa can hardly have been of the weight that Andrinkos postulates. I'd think it smaller and slimmer.

I have recovered Sekunda's "The Sarisa" from my compromised external hard drive.

Presumably the weight of the head would have to be kept fairly light to prevent the sarissa from bowing, and the weight of the shaft and head would be counterbalanced by the size of the butt. And the amount of bowing in the wood would also depend on the type of wood used. I think Germanics/Vikings used ash for their spears.

If the men had to use two hands to hold it (one wouldn't be sufficient), that either means they had no shield or only a small one that would fit on the left forearm.

Do we know whereabouts the section of iron that looks like a hand-grip was fitted on the shaft? I believe this was the point at which the sarissa could be dismantled for carrying and repair. Theoretically this should be in the centre of the shaft, but it would aid weight distribution and grip if it were nearer the butt end.

[spitamenes]

For some reason cornel wood comes to mind. Its durable and relatively lightweight. If my memory serves me correctly cornel was abundant in the mountains of macedonia and that's what was primarily used, along with ash as a secondary material.

[Alexias]

Yes, cornel wood does come to mind, but I don't know anything about the size of the tree.

I've been having second thoughts about this dismantling of the sarissa. They didn't have screws, so maybe they simply whittled the end of the wood and fitted it into the socket. Would this have been strong enough though, as the size of that 'hand grip' middle section is only about 5 inches. The alternative would be nails, meaning you'd have to replace both pieces of wood either side of the join.

[Paralus]

Presumably the weight of the head would have to be kept fairly light to prevent the sarissa from bowing...

A most important point. No matter the counterweight, if the head were too heavy the weapon would droop. The heavier the head the less managable the weapon becomes.

I've been having second thoughts about this dismantling of the sarissa. They didn't have screws, so maybe they simply whittled the end of the wood and fitted it into the socket. Would this have been strong enough though, as the size of that 'hand grip' middle section is only about 5 inches. The alternative would be nails, meaning you'd have to replace both pieces of wood either side of the join.

You are not the only one. If that "sleeve" is the joiner there is not much wood in each end of the tube. There are no dowel / nail holes in this "joiner sleeve" that I know of either.

As to the wood, cornel is mentioned both by Theophrastus and Arrian. Theophrastus says only that the cornel tree was about the same height as the sarisa (12 cubits). This is in a discussion about both the "male" and "female" cornel trees and the fact that only the one (can't remember which off hand) is suitable for the making of javelins; the other being useless. Arrian mentiones the advantage that the hetairoi had over the Persians at the Granicus because their xystons were made of cornel wood.

None of which stipulates that the infantry sarisa was made of cornel wood. Indeed Theophrastus' discussion would clearly indicate otherwise. I'm in large agreement with Sekunda that Ash is the most likely candidate.

[spitamenes]

The weight and durability of the wood will be the deciding factor of wether or not the sleeve was deep enough to effectively hold the sarissa sections in place. We also have to remember that they had to be strong enough to withstand intense close quarters battle too. I don't think it would need screws or nails if the wood was fit snug enough into the sleeve. Are we sure that the sarissa only had one sleeve? Just a thought... two would make it more level with less bow but would also probably make it more brittle and give them a higher chance of malfunction.

[Alexias]

If that "sleeve" is the joiner there is not much wood in each end of the tube. There are no dowel / nail holes in this "joiner sleeve" that I know of either.

The socket to attach the head is twice as long as the blade. I think that other piece must be a handgrip, not a join. Or maybe a strengthening sleeve if it was placed further along the shaft.

[spitamenes]

Has anyone had a look at the inside of the sleeve? If its just a simple hollow cylinder all the way through I would think its a handle,and~or strengthening sleeve. But if it was beveled toward the middle from both ends it would probably be a connector.

[Alexias]

I didn't think to look, but I doubt it very much. I didn't make it very clear but I was thinking of the 'handgrip' screwing onto the wooden shaft, but I doubt very much whether they would have had the technology to create spiralling grooves on the inside of a metal barrel, even if the idea had been invented. But in any case, in my opinion at any rate, that handle of metal is simply not long enough to join two 8 or 9 foot pieces of wood with any stability. Especially if they were weighted at the other end with a blade or butt.

[Paralus]

Being the Macedonian phalanx weapon and that phalanx relying for effect on some sort of uniformity, the sarisa had to have some integrity. It also had to be of a uniform construction - one couldn't have eighteen, twelve and other length sarisae in the ranks and maintain a tactical utility. Secondly, the "joiner tube" simply could not fail: to do so was to court disaster. That tube really does not convey any sense of security. To me there is much too much propensity for breakage at this "join" as well as separation when thrust and withdrawn.

[spitamenes]

To me there is much too much propensity for breakage at this "join" as well as separation when thrust and withdrawn.

I never thought of the separation during withdraw. That's a good point.

[spitamenes]

the "joiner tube" simply could not fail: to do so was to court disaster.

Well, no matter how well a weapon is built, in the field, they simply DO fail. Often enough for militaries to have a protocol on what to do in case of such an issue,in order to not court disaster.