Just an update on Sarissa research .

[davej]

For anybody excluding Andrew who is more interest in bits then weapons. I am planning a series of test using a cavalry Sarissa. We have arrange a reining quarter horse and a 4.5m long shaft tipped with a replica of the head found by Andronicus. The head will be trimmed to weigh 1.1 kg. The butt spike is a copy of the cruciform butt spike found with the head. We are going to do several runs at a fixed target, testing its impact on some armour plate and finding balance points. Any other suggestions for tests or insight would be greatly appreciated.Anybody in Australia is welcome to come along to the test when we fix a date.

[maciek]

Wow I'd do a lot to be in such tests. I thought many times about such thing. Well all I can do is theoretc researches. last time I spoke to my friend also very interested in ancient and especially in Alex's Macedonia. Well interesting idea is that we have different opinions about the sarrisa lenght - and maybe it is so because they had different kind of sarrisa in any row. From shortest in first to longest in 5th. Then the line of the top ends would make a wall like it was said in sources.
Regards
Maciek M
P.S. I'm waiting for any information about Your researches. maybe You have some pictures from it?

[marcus]

Sounds great, Dave - good luck.I don't suppose that, while you're at it, you could prove that the sarissa was invented by the modern Macedonians, could you? :-)All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

Good luck with your project!
You're very lucky to live close to nature, with horses around and to be able to undertake such experiments.
Once again, good luck and please keep us informed on the results.Yiannis

[smittysmitty]

Hi all,I look forward to results you come up with Dave, I've always felt unsatisfied with the sources information on battle tactics. For decades it has puzzled me how the Companion cavalry was as effective as it was! Once the initial thrust of their charge came to an end, I assume the sarrisa was of little value close up? We hear of the cavalry employing infantry tactics! (Granicus if I remember correctly). I presume the closeness of the fighting meant they switched from sarrisa to sword?, perhaps not!I've always had a sneaking suspicion, the companions were a little heavier armoured than what has been traditionally suggested., to the point where they may have worn chain mail and or metal curaiss.. In any event, good luck with the exercise, and I await your findings with great interest.cheers!

[beausefaless]

"more interest in bits then weapons" Thank you, it's nice to be singled out as the lone wolf. You should learn how to handle criticism. Just because I believe your test is ridicules and immature doesn't mean I favor bits over weapons, true I own horses and I'm more content on horseback then behind a wheel plus the view is pleasant.
You have mentioned absolutely nothing on the type (properties) of wood the sarissa was made. Macedonia was abundance in forest's and self sufficient, they didn't need to import anything. Did the Macedonians use oak, fir, ash, not pine, probably oak, what about cotton wood a young cotton wood tree (50 ft. to 75 ft.) are very strong and lighter weight than oak and does not rot if laid on the ground for long periods of time. What type of wood are you using (eucalyptus), I'm sure the koala bears love you, Oh, that's right I'm excluded from this message thread, dj is not predigest, bigoted and never holds animosity towards anyone he's just one groovy dude from aussie land.
I don't wish you any luck but I don't wish you any harm either.

[davej]

I don't hold a grudge and I think that your criticism of my work was uncalled for and illinformed. The fact you don't know what Sarissas were made of reveals to me that you are completly ignorant of the weapon. But I suppose that wont stop you voicing your opinion. For just about every message thread, there is Andy reply, even if you have nothing to say. Well worthwhile anyway. Sarissas were made of Cornel wood which is about as heavy as oak but stronger and more flexible. We can get hold of anything like that for our tests, so we may be reduced to dowel wood. Which sucks. I am not bigoted really, I just am offended by your ignorance. I will rise above it. I exclude you because you are uninterested in the topic, not for any other reason.

[beausefaless]

I knew cornel wood was used for bows and spears and you are right to say I was ignorant on the use of cornel wood for the sarissa I thought oak or ash I'm not sure if mountain maple is indigenous to that part of Europe I've been trying to find a good source on the makings of the sarissa but not much luck as you say cause I'm ignorant but what better way to learn than to read and participate.
Philip created a unique way to use the pikes, Alexander used them to perfection for different reasons and the Romans showed how they can be worthless for numerous reasons, extra length by the Macedonians and offensive shield maneuvering by the Romans to name a couple, but with all do respect to Hannibal, the Romans never went up against Alexander who was a genius at adapting to any situation in battle.

[matz]

I suspect you expected a reaction, so there you go, have your 5min of grinning.Excluding the natural sciences, one can prove anything as long as he's got the incentive and the drive. The current state of affairs in relation to Alexander's conquest and the ancient Macedonian history in general, a mess really, is a proof of that.The winners and their entourage have the pleasure of writing the history, so nobody bothered to ask the people who called and still call themselves Macedonians about their history. Instead, other people fell appropriate to tell them who they are and whether they have the right to exist. Hence the continuous frustrations and the reactions such as the one we saw from a member of this forum.Modern Macedonians, as you'd like to call them, have finally got the freedom to study, research and write on their history, so you can only expect more to come, hopefully in a well articulated manner.If this attempt does not prove that "modern Macedonians" invented the sarissa, perhaps it would show that modern Greeks did that. Or perhaps Marcus should take the credit for it.Regards,
Matz

[marcus]

Hi Matz,Thank you for a very sensible reply to my comment.I look forward indeed to learning more about Macedonian history. I don't even mind if it is not so well articulated, so long as it is bona fide history and, in the case of this website, pertinant to the subject of Alexander. As almost all of the posts that I object to are irrelevant to the subject, and often spurious also, I feel justified in having a pop at them.Funny, isn't it, that I try to keep well away from all those posts in general because, to be honest, I've got better things to do with my time, and then when I make one off-hand comment I am criticised? Oh well... :-)All the bestMarcus

[davej]

Why I even bother responding is beyond me. I just can't help myself. I know that your public persona is different to your private one. In emails off the forum you are pleseant and polite. On the page you are ignorant ilinform and opinionated. None of those are hanging offences, I am guilty of them myself. When you belittle other people's work you cross the line. I notice you could not help but have a second dig, calling my research ridiculous. I consider the study of bits ridiculous and far less important to understanding how Alexander's war machine worked. I have ridden horses, but I don't confess to be an expert on saddlery. I hardly think the changing of the bit alters the horse battle performance to any large degree. As I understand it anyway. I will stand corrected if you can convince me that the horse can go faster or respond quicker to rider comands, which I believe are made more with the legs during battle. Prove me wrong.
As far as the Sarissa wood and make up goes, your ignorance of the weapon is nothing to proud of. Not knowing its make up, functionalty and limitations makes my research more valid not less. You can problably number yourself amongs those who believe Cleitus was killed by a sarissa. Or those convinced that Sarissas were used at Granicus and Issus.
I must confess I do like locking horns with you so long as it does'nt get personal. I wish you well even if you don't afford me the same sentiment. I respect all scholars and realise that all areas of research have validy, even if I can't see it myself. Good luck with your own research.

[beausefaless]

Next time you post on this subject just don't mention my name unless you want a battle.

"As far as the Sarissa wood and make up goes, your ignorance of the weapon
is nothing to proud of. Not knowing its make up, functionalty and
limitations makes my research more valid not less."


I didn't imply I was proud I was just being honest about the type of wood, I'm still trying to find the source of info and how you learned the composition of the sarissa, of coarse I don't think you'll reveal your source to me, as far as limitations and "functionality" I know exactly when, what, why and how.


You have a right to your own opinion and I'll be the first to support it.


"In emails off the forum you are pleasant and polite."


I'm not sure I can say the same about one email you sent when your teacher said that my sir name meant some sort of foul feces in the intestinal track, my sir name is generic and you know why, personally, I think Johnson is a very good name.


As I said before, by no means I wish you and your companions any harm just be careful. Two sides of a debate is always healthy and anyone that likes to eat marsupials can't be all bad.


Take care!

[matz]

As far as the posts irrelevant to the subject of the website goes, I would probably do the same thing as you. And I think you'd do the same thing if the places were swapped. But my point was that there are many posts irrelevant to the subject, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, from the "opposite" side, but noone cares to react on that simply because it's been an accepted wisdom (correct or not) for some time in the past.I try myself to stay out of the fruitless discussions as much as I can, but sometimes it's just impossible. I'm sorry that I critised your post, I guess you touched an Achiles 's foot then.Regards,
Matz

[davej]

I have no trouble revealing my sourse on the cornel wood. It is from the original articles by Markle in AJA in 1977 and 1978. I will forward the PDF files when I get to work on Monday. Perhaps after you read the articles you may inderstand why this area of research is important. I am in fact surprised you have not read them, they are manditory reding for milittary studies here in Oz. There are a number of articles available by other sources that disagree with much of what Markle said in 1977, he himslef has changed his mind of several issues. I consider myself privaliged to number him amongst my colleagues and friends. I will furnish you with some of those too. i have no problem with that. There are some offensive article by an American called PA Manti which are a little over the top and of little worth. There is also a couple my Mixter, I can fax them too if you want. There is also a recent article by Peter Connolly who has agreed with some of Markles theories and disagree with others. I have a different opinion again. This will come out when I publish my article after I complete the final testing on th e Cavalry sarissa.I can't recall insulting your name, if that is what has you worked up I am sorry. A little bit of knowledge is a bad thing.

[marcus]

No need to apologise - I just found it quite amusing. I suppose you touched a small nerve yourself, as I am usually quite careful to stay out of those threads.All the bestMarcus