Art as evidence. The Alexander mosiac.

[davej]

I promised Marcus that I would post something to spark a little debate. I dont like Art as evidence I think the Mosiac in particular is badly out of scale (as it is designed to be pretty). Its no secret that my interest is in Sarissas, this is one piece of evidence sighted by all. Is it just a pretty picture or proof positive that Alexander used a massively over sized Sarissa?Oh opinions on which battle would also be cool. Bye all sorry for my extended Hybernation.

[nick]

Hi Dave -The discussion which battle is presented in the mosaic, has been dominated by the prominent dead tree. As Gaugamela was fought on a treeless plain, the popular opinion is: Issus.However, our sources state that Gaugamela witnessed the rare occasion on which Alexander was wearing his cuirass into battle. If my eyes are OK, I can clearly see Alexander wearing his gorgon-head armor on that mosaic. So: is it Gaugamela after all?On gaugamela.com I have argued that the dead tree resembles the 'solitary tree' mentioned by Marco Polo in his Travels. According to Marco Polo there is a single tree in the wastelands of northern Persia which - according to legend - marks the spot where Alexander and Darius came face to face in battle. This is exactly what the mosaic shows.So, I would say that the mosaic depicts neither Issus nor Gaugamela, but the fictional "Battle of the Dead Tree" somewhere in the deserts of Iran, which never happened, but which in an artistic way presents the sublimation of the war between East and West.By the way, the location of the Dead Tree as it is mentioned by Marco Polo saw only one major event in the Alexander histories: the murder of Darius. So the Dead Tree is there as the symbol of the downfall of the Achaemenid dynasty: it represents the inevitable death (and defeat) of King Darius.Regards -
Nick

[susan]

My father was in the Royal Air Force, stationed in Northern Iraq in 1933, on the Greater Zab River which is between Gaugamela and Arbela. I have his photo albums, which I am taking to the RAF museum this week. There certainly appear to be trees in the area - although many are scrubby - so I wonder if the plain at Gaugamela was actually treeless after all. There are treelined gorges, certainly.The pictures show a vanished world - it was still called Mesopotamia then. When I get them scanned, I will put some of the photos on a site, as they show a way of life that was probably much closer to Alexander's time.Susan

[Paul]

I'm afraid the tree is probably (so to speak) a red herring. Barren looking trees frequently appear in Persian art (and the so-called Greco-Persian art of Asia Minor) as symbolising death. It would seem particularly appropriate for poor old Darius.

[agesilaos]

I have to agree with Paul on the symbolic nature of the tree; Susan,Darius had cleared and levelled the plain of Gaugamela, so there would have been no trees.Alexander is weilding a 12ft xyston not a 16ft sarissa which was an infantry weapon, with the possible exception of the so-called sarissophoroi although I tend to think that they were called this because they used the xyston which was much longer than the other light cavalry weapons and was thus a nickname.

[Tre]

Hello Dave:The cavalry carried a short sarrissa, but I belive it was about 8' long - where I got that I don't recall. It was used for 'shock value' to cause shifting or collapse of the enemy line, who might have been on foot or horseback themselves. People naturally fear being 'kabobed.' However, because the Macedonian cavalry did not use stirrups, this weapon could really only be used to 'poke' with or as a club as holding onto it while encountering something that doesn't fall over quick would unseat you off your horse. It was definitely not a good weapon on horseback once the enemy had been engaged.As for the mosaic itself, there is an entire book on the subject but the author's name eludes me. Andy Stewart is the master of Ancient Greek art and you should read his comments in Faces of Power on it. It is generally though to have been a copy of a painting commissioned by Cassander of the Battle of Issus, but there is no way to verify that. All we know is there was a famous painting discussed in ancient literature on that topic. Some of the composition suggests it may well have been copied from a painting.As for myself, I believe it is the battle of Gaugamela, signified by the long sideburns on Alexander, a 'half-measure' to appease the Persians whose great King had a full beard and naturally one had to distinguish oneself from the eunuchs. I am aware of course of the suggestions that the long sideburns were a Roman fashion, but I rather think differently.As for the dead tree - interesting theory. A similar composition exists in the painting over tomb II. The scenery is dominated by leafed trees and a pillar. This could indicate the season.Reagards,Tre

[agesilaos]

The short sarissa idea is Markle's I believe, this despite the fact that Arrian I 15 v clearly terms them xysta '...xystois kraneinois pros palta emachonto.' they were fighting with cornel wood xysta(lances) against javelins.The effectiveness of stirrupless lancers is a much debated point, but their popularity in ancient armies does speak for effectiveness. I suspect that whilst hitting a solid object like a post or braced target would unseat you (I seem to remember a demonstration of this in James Burkes' Connections, discussing the Norman victory at Hastings) no battlefield target is that resilient, people having a tendancy to get out of the way, and if hit to be bowled over.I agree with your comment on the sideburns not being a Roman accretion, don't some sculptures show them? I am not too sure that they make the battle Gaugamela, though.

[davej]

I speak to minor once a week and he still beleives in two lenghts of Sarissa. The big advocate for the short sarissa is PA Manti (a complete wanker) from the USA. HIs whole arguement is based a bematis cubit. I wont bore you. Markle still says 5.5m ofr Infantry and 4.5m for Cavalry. The Sarissa in the mosiac I recon is about 5.5 meters, hence out of scale. But thats another story.I can always count on you Karl for an iteliegent answer. I beleive the terminlogy for spear, Lancer and sarissas is complticated by ancient authers not wishing repeat the same word. There are very few references to sarissas in Arrian Dio or Curtius.

[agesilaos]

You are of course right about the stylistic effect, Arrian in the passage I quoted to show xysta had just called them doru/ spears! I think, however that we can separate the technical terms from the catch-alls and thus arrive at a more modern rigour in our usage. Arrian is notoriously lax, I am forever reading of the taxis of so-and-so and taxis being taken as a technical term, frequently rendered as battalion; this is wrong it merely means unit and giving it a precision it lacks can lead even the best into error.But I think I'll start a thread on that one. Chaire