Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

Carefull there Paullus: you're taking on the glow of the religious "only I know the truth..."

....that's a bit snide and uncalled for....and one of the silliest things you've posted!....to state the obvious, the whole point of posting is to encourage discussion and elicit information that one doesn't have, in order to expand one's views.... :roll: :roll:

My dear fellow, either you are becoming rather sensitive or have begun to take yourself rather too seriously. The remark was not snide; silly is in the eye of the reader. It was a “light” aside.

As a s(n)ide note: I do not resort “smilies” and “emoticons” to somehow soften my supposed “snide”, “silly” or more “pointed” remarks.

I’m afraid that what Paul Mac has written above is a clear misrepresentation of the passage in Polybios (which, I note, is not referenced). Polybios (18.29.1-2) clearly states that the length of the sarissa had altered:

It is not a "misrepresentation" at all ! We may trust Polybius for his own day, but hardly for whatever story he had heard about the 'original design' when we have the contemporary Theophrastus. I agree with Connolly here....to refer to Polybius' obviously unreliable '16 cubits originally' simply causes un-necessary confusion and 'muddies the waters' to no end...or rather, just for mischief ! :x

The “sainted” Conolly aside, we seem only to be able to “trust” Polybios when he accords with your own views. He clearly indicates that there had been a change in sarissa length: that he has the “original” correct is another matter; for Polybios there had clearly been a change in length. Because he posits the longer length before his time we are to discard it as unreliable. Are we then to posit that when Polybios relates matters technical earlier than his own time he is not to be relied upon? Like the “ancestral laws” of Sparta’s Lycurgus, it is easy to assume that sarissa lengths being longer within living memory were the original version. Particularly in an age minus any decent access to recorded information.

What is interesting is that it is the cavalry guard only who are xystophoroi and that the hetairoi, who are described separately, are not carrying the xyston as Diodorus clearly makes the distinction.

Possibly, but I don't think it necessarily follows that just because two distinct units are referred to, they were necessarily differently armed. There is nothing to suggest they didn't carry the 'xyston'.....in fact there is no hint as to how the 'Hetaroi'/Companions were armed in this passage. The fact that the cavalry action is described with the generic term 'fighting was with spears' which also might indicate that the various units were differently armed, but that is certain anyway, because it included 'Tarantines'.( "most of which were shattered" might be a clue that most of these were 'long lances'/xysta) ......

The entire action is described in Diodorus’ “generic” terms. Thus we have “many had fallen” and “the battle continued for a long time on equal terms” as well as the bravery of the leaders. All normal Diodoran descriptions and set up for the usual Diodoran favourite: the calamitous turn of tyche that would see the downfall of one: the elephant debacle. That formulaic description aside, Diodorus enumerates the cavalry troops that form Demetrius’ left wing. It is only the guard that he goes on to describe as armed with the xyston, the Companions not being included in that and described separately. They may have been armed similarly but Diodorus, for some reason, elects to set aside the guard as so armed.