Alexander exhibition in Oxford

[marcus]

Dear all,

Well I went to the exhibition today - I won't bore you all with my disastrous experience with Oxford's woeful Park and Ride facilities, although I did have a nice lunch with my sister, nephew and niece, thank you very much.

There's not really much I can add to Alexias' detailed description from his visit, but first of all I will say that it was an excellent exhibition. It was a bit annoying that all the way through they were referring to "Philip's tomb", "Meda's tomb", "Alexander IV's tomb" ... but I was forcing myself to remember that this is an exhibition and not a scholarly paper. Although I have only glanced at the catalogue so far, it does appear that there are articles that deal with the identification of at least a couple of the tombs in more detail.

Anyway, the main reason for posting now is to add some more to the discussion of the sarissa, following Alexias' posting of the catalogue picture:

Paralus/Marcus, I am not quite sure of the size of the sarissa blades you are referring to, but below is a picture of the weapon in the exhibition. It is broader and heavier than the spear and javelin heads shown.

IMG_0002a.jpg

(Hmm, I though this would show the picture again, but it doesn't. You'll have to go back and look at Alexias' post again! Sorry)

The picture does not really give a sense of quite how huge the spear head (and butt spike) was. It made my jaw drop. I made some rough estimates of size by holding up various parts of my anatomy to the glass, and as soon as I got home I measured these out. Perhaps these will then help to give some context to the picture.

The spear head (including the socket) is around 18 inches long. The butt spike is also around 18 inches long. The middle joining socket is around 5 inches long.

The spear head is huge - not dissimilar to the head on a Zulu assegai, although perhaps not quite so large. The fact is, you wouldn't need to thrust the entire head into a body ... in fact, you probably wouldn't be able to, especially if there was a breastplate in the way; but if you got even half of it in it would completely ruin the enemy's insides. Even if only half of the point penetrated you would be talking about a wide wound which would certainly disembowel, smash most of the ribs, completely shatter the breastbone, or take a head half off, depending on where the point struck. This is a fearsome weapon!

It should be noted that when one compares it to other "leaf-shaped" spearheads on display, which I suspect were from hunting spears, they are much broader even though they are not at all as long. I do, therefore, stand by my earlier statement that I do not consider the sarissa head to be too broad for thrust and withdrawal - not least considering my point above, that you wouldn't be sticking the entire point inside your enemy, anyway.

I remember reading somewhere that the phalanx might also have swung their hedge of sarissas from side to side in battle - much as they did when they had crossed the Danube in 335 BC. The heads of these sarissas are like short swords, and at neck height they would take someone's head off, or an arm at the shoulder.

A bit dramatic, I know; but to be honest, until you've actually seen it, it is quite difficult to grasp what a beast of a weapon this was!

ATB

[Alexias]

Glad you enjoyed the exhibition, Marcus. (I always park under the bus station when I go to Oxford. It's expensive but right across the road from the Ashmolean.)

The spear head (including the socket) is around 18 inches long. The butt spike is also around 18 inches long. The middle joining socket is around 5 inches long.

The spear head is huge - not dissimilar to the head on a Zulu assegai, although perhaps not quite so large. The fact is, you wouldn't need to thrust the entire head into a body ... in fact, you probably wouldn't be able to, especially if there was a breastplate in the way; but if you got even half of it in it would completely ruin the enemy's insides. Even if only half of the point penetrated you would be talking about a wide wound which would certainly disembowel, smash most of the ribs, completely shatter the breastbone, or take a head half off, depending on where the point struck.

The actual blade though is less than half the length of the top section, about 8 inches long by 3 inches wide, so not overly heavy. The widening of the blade of course slows penetration and aids withdrawal, but it did occur to me to wonder what the difference would be if the blade was held vertically rather than flat. Flat (with the blade's edges horizontal) would cause maximum damage, but if you wanted to limit penetration, would holding it the other way extend its usefulness?

What did surprise me though was the ferociousness of the butt. I'm betting that if you lost the blade, you'd turn it round and use the other end.

[marcus]

Glad you enjoyed the exhibition, Marcus. (I always park under the bus station when I go to Oxford. It's expensive but right across the road from the Ashmolean.)

Well, normally I park at my sister's house; but she's on the other side of Oxford so to save time I thought I'd try the P&R facilities. Big mistake ... huge!

The actual blade though is less than half the length of the top section, about 8 inches long by 3 inches wide, so not overly heavy. The widening of the blade of course slows penetration and aids withdrawal, but it did occur to me to wonder what the difference would be if the blade was held vertically rather than flat. Flat (with the blade's edges horizontal) would cause maximum damage, but if you wanted to limit penetration, would holding it the other way extend its usefulness?

What did surprise me though was the ferociousness of the butt. I'm betting that if you lost the blade, you'd turn it round and use the other end.

I have to say, it never occurred to me whether the blade would be held horizontally or vertically. My automatic response would be to say vertical, but if the phalanx were sweeping their sarissas from side to side then it would make more sense for them to be held horizontally. I agree, however, that a horizontal stomach wound would be more serious than a vertical one - especially when one considers how long a wounded man would have to wait before a surgeon got to him. Or perhaps there was a mixture - it probably didn't matter! I don't think either way would aid or impede penetration more than the other, though, would it?

I agree about the butt spike - horrible! It would work as a sort of mace, as well, for crushing as well as thrusting. So if one's sarissa did get broken, and the phalanx did get broken up (which it doesn't appear to have done, although Simmias' battalion at Gaugamela probably did), then any men who found themselves in a hand-to-hand combat situation could wield a shortened sarissa as either a spear or a wicked club.

A pleasant set of images to take to bed with me tonight - it's a good thing I'm reading a Viking novel at the moment, which has oodles of excellent hand-to-hand combat in it ...

ATB

[marcus]

The actual blade though is less than half the length of the top section, about 8 inches long by 3 inches wide, so not overly heavy.

Just a quickie on this - I think it's longer than that. I shall have to measure the pictures in the catalogue more closely.

And another thing to add, which again the picture in the catalogue doesn't really show, and that is the breadth of the socket. The spear shaft is pretty thick!

ATB

[spitamenes]

Marcus,
I'm glad to hear you were able to see the exhibit, the topic came up about the handle and or connecting piece a couple weeks back and, if it was as short as you say I'm doubting it was a connector piece like I originally thought. Did you by chance get to look insidethe handle piece? I'm wondering if it is just a simple bore or if it is beveled in any way to hold separate pieces of the sarissa together more tightly? And... I do know that in more recent times the spear heads were held at a horizontal position in order to travel more smoothly through the rib cage. I can't say for sure about the Macedonians but things like that normally stick, a tried and true situation I'm sure.
So anyway, I'm glad to see you had a safe trip and for the most part, it sounded like a good time.

P.s. I like the new avatar. Where was your old avatar image from? Was that from Babylon?

[Paralus]

Markle (Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in the History of Art, Vol 10) gives the weight of the "sarisa" head as 1.235 kg and the butt 1.027 kg. The lengths are 51cm and 45cm respectively. Going on the photographs in the paper the iconic Androikos "sarisa" blade (less shaft) is some 23 cm long and about 5.5 cm in breadth (at widest). These are not hard and fast having been arrived at via photo.

The point (pardon the pun) is that whilst the length of the weapon makes it cumbersome - in space terms - the weight of such a head makes it so much the more so. More so in moving or swinging it. Descriptions of the sarisa driving through shields and armour and into the soldier indicate (avoided point) that these blades sunk into their opponents with some relative ease.

I believe there is every possibility that sarisa butts were wielded as weapons if the weapon broke - as it must have.

[marcus]

. Did you by chance get to look insidethe handle piece? I'm wondering if it is just a simple bore or if it is beveled in any way to hold separate pieces of the sarissa together more tightly? And... I do know that in more recent times the spear heads were held at a horizontal position in order to travel more smoothly through the rib cage. I can't say for sure about the Macedonians but things like that normally stick, a tried and true situation I'm sure.

Unfortunately the way the parts were displayed meant that it was impossible to see. I agree with you, however, that some sort of bevelling would have been preferable - I was thinking exactly the same last night.

I agree about the horizontal blade passing more easily through ribs. Having said that, once it had smashed through a shield and breastplate, I doubt that anything like a set of ribs would have inconvenienced them too much! Of course, another advantage of holding the blade in a blade up position would also ensure the smashing of ribs, driving them back to rupture internal organs ... so either position would result in a nasty, nasty wound!

P.s. I like the new avatar. Where was your old avatar image from? Was that from Babylon?

Thanks. The old one was from Susa. I might go back to it at some point, but I fancied a change.

ATB

[marcus]

Markle (Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in the History of Art, Vol 10) gives the weight of the "sarisa" head as 1.235 kg and the butt 1.027 kg. The lengths are 51cm and 45cm respectively. Going on the photographs in the paper the iconic Androikos "sarisa" blade (less shaft) is some 23 cm long and about 5.5 cm in breadth (at widest). These are not hard and fast having been arrived at via photo.

The point (pardon the pun) is that whilst the length of the weapon makes it cumbersome - in space terms - the weight of such a head makes it so much the more so. More so in moving or swinging it. Descriptions of the sarisa driving through shields and armour and into the soldier indicate (avoided point) that these blades sunk into their opponents with some relative ease.

I believe there is every possibility that sarisa butts were wielded as weapons if the weapon broke - as it must have.

I was giving this some thought, and to be honest the only way I can reconcile these problems (all of which I think we all agree with) is to suggest that the centre socket was not placed in the centre, that the forward 'half' of the spear was shorter than the rear 'half'. Logistically, from an armourer's point of view, this makes it more complicated; but the longer the forward haft was then the more cumbersome it must have been, as you say.

How about this for a wild idea ... for the initial forward impetus, whether attacking or defending, the hedge of sarissas was extended at full length. Once the initial impetus was lost, the rear halves of the sarissa were ditched and the forward ranks continued to use just the forward sections for thrusting at any enemy that got close?

I suppose another thing to be considered is that, unwieldy or not, that hedge of spear points sticking out of the front of the phalanx would have made any attack on the phalanx extremely difficult, not to say terrifying. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the phalanx rarely actually got into hand to hand combat, except for those occasions when they were isolated and taken in flank, such as with Simmias' battalion at Gaugamela; at which point, I would be surprised if the soldiers caught on the flank by the Persians continued to hold on to their full-length sarissas, as they would have been slaughtered had they done so.

It also highlights the need for a very strong defence on the flank, from hypaspists, Agrianians or cavalry.

ATB

[spitamenes]

I would think the phalanx had a "turtle shell" style defensive position. They would have to bring the sarissa to a vertical position, the right flank perform a right face, left flank performs a left face and the rear performs an about face. Then all would reassume the battle position with the sarissa. If it was a ten by ten unit and it was divided in an X pattern from corner to corner diaginally, then each flank would be guarded by 25 pikes. A completely immobile defensive position yes, but in a severe situation where a flank attack is imminent, it could prove very useful until an offensive cavalry or infantry unit arrives to save the day. But like what happened at Gaugamela, it makes me wonder if they were severely caught off guard, or couldn't give up the forward position. (?) ...Fog of war... gaugamela, once it got going, had to have been such a dusty battle where vision was so poor that you wouldn't be able to see an enemy charge until they were right up in your face. You'd probably hear them before you'd see them. Scary thought. Has anyone ever written they're thoughts on different possible positions the phalanx could perform? Id like to hear what an X drill commander with macedonian phalanx knowledge could muster up on the subject.

[Paralus]

I would think the phalanx had a "turtle shell" style defensive position. They would have to bring the sarissa to a vertical position, the right flank perform a right face, left flank performs a left face and the rear performs an about face. Then all would reassume the battle position with the sarissa. A completely immobile defensive position yes, but in a severe situation where a flank attack is imminent, it could prove very useful until an offensive cavalry or infantry unit arrives to save the day.

Not quite immobile....

Diod. 19.43.4-5: Antigonus divided his cavalry into two bodies with one of which he himself lay in wait for Eumenes, watching for his first move; but the other he gave to Pithon and ordered him to attack the Silver Shields now that they had been cut off from their cavalry support. When Pithon promptly carried out his orders, the Macedonians formed themselves into a square and withdrew safely to the river, where they accused Peucestes of being responsible for the defeat of the mounted forces.

The battle of Gabiene (and Paraetecene) is actually better reported - militarily - than Gaugamela; dust and all.

[marcus]

...Fog of war... gaugamela, once it got going, had to have been such a dusty battle where vision was so poor that you wouldn't be able to see an enemy charge until they were right up in your face. You'd probably hear them before you'd see them. Scary thought.

I wonder quite how visibility would have been affected during the battle. I don't deny "fog of war" at all, but contrary to what was in Oliver Stone's film, Gaugamela was not fought in a desert. Semi-arid* plain, yes, but that means that all the "dust" thrown up wouldn't have been very much more than would normally have been thrown up by armies of that size, and it wasn't as if the Persian army all attacked en masse. I don't see any reason why the Macedonians wouldn't have seen exactly what was coming at them. No less scary for all that, of course! The "worst" thing that came at them was the brigade of scythed chariots, and these came at the start of the battle, when there would have been very little dust thrown up to obscure their progress.

* In fact, I don't know whether the landscape of northern Mesopotamia even counts as semi-arid, although it certainly is dry during the summer. Then again, Gaugamela was fought in October, when things are considerably cooler ...

ATB

[marcus]

I would think the phalanx had a "turtle shell" style defensive position. They would have to bring the sarissa to a vertical position, the right flank perform a right face, left flank performs a left face and the rear performs an about face. Then all would reassume the battle position with the sarissa. A completely immobile defensive position yes, but in a severe situation where a flank attack is imminent, it could prove very useful until an offensive cavalry or infantry unit arrives to save the day.

Not quite immobile....

Diod. 19.43.4-5: Antigonus divided his cavalry into two bodies with one of which he himself lay in wait for Eumenes, watching for his first move; but the other he gave to Pithon and ordered him to attack the Silver Shields now that they had been cut off from their cavalry support. When Pithon promptly carried out his orders, the Macedonians formed themselves into a square and withdrew safely to the river, where they accused Peucestes of being responsible for the defeat of the mounted forces.

The battle of Gabiene (and Paraetecene) is actually better reported - militarily - than Gaugamela; dust and all.

The Napoleonic Wars also saw mobile squares. They just move much more slowly ...

ATB

[spitamenes]

I was just thinking theoretically, that they probablyhad a defensive square of ten by ten where all pikes were facing to its closest flank. Doidorus only says the word "square" correct? Does the term "square" mean a specific position the men were in? Or just that they re entered they're standard position in order to retreat to the river?

[Paralus]

I was just thinking theoretically, that they probablyhad a defensive square of ten by ten where all pikes were facing to its closest flank. Doidorus only says the word "square" correct? Does the term "square" mean a specific position the men were in? Or just that they re entered they're standard position in order to retreat to the river?

The formation was a tactical formation. Diodorus writes that "the Macedonians" formed a square and by "Macedonians" he is referring to the argyraspides. Thus their phalanx - in its entirety rather than single syntagma - formed a square. This square will have been hollow in the centre and thus a "phalanx" on all sides. The cleruchic phalanx of Antiochus III did the same at Magnesia (Appian, Syriaca 6.32,35):

The total force of Antiochus was 70,000 and the strongest of these was the Macedonian phalanx of 16,000 men, still arrayed after the fashion of Alexander and Philip. These were placed in the centre, divided into ten sections of 1600 men each, with fifty men in the front line of each section and thirty-two deep. On the flanks of each section were twenty-two elephants [...] The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides. They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge.

Appian is somewhat confused (22 elephants should clearly be two as Livy has it). The formation of the square will have been adopted after their flanks were exposed - as he clealrly indicates by the sarisae on "all four sides". It goes without saying that this was not how the phalanx was arrayed for the battle unless they wished to take on their own flank supports. Appian later makes this a little clearer when he describes the break up of the phalanx due to the elephants inside the tactical square:

The latter [Romans] kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight.

[spitamenes]

Thank you very much, Paralus, for clearing that up for me. I've been looking for images of tactical phalanx formations all morning trying to find any arial type views of what the different positions were, but can't find any right now. I do have a book at home that shows a few different formations and even where the unit commander and executive commanders (I do not know the Macedonian terms) would have stood. Ill have to dig it up to see what kind of information is there. I know how disciplined todays military is with drill but nowdays its not a matter of life or death. So I can only imagine all the different, complex formations the Macedonians had, especially since they're lives depended them. Thanks again.