12-21-2009, 02:49 AM
If we can summarise the debate so far, it would seem that the only consensus is that we don’t have much evidence, that the iconography is open to the usual criticisms and open to interpretation, and that conclusive results, as might be expected, cannot come from it.
So let us turn to literature, to see what additional evidence can be gleaned….
Ruben wrote:
Fair enough !.....
Yes, Connolly chooses to concentrate on those ‘who were there’ – Theophrastus for Philip/Alexander’s time, and Polybius for the end of the Macedonian phalanx era, and does not consider the later manuals of, Asclepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian, who all wrote in Roman times.( the former in the 1st C BC and the last two in Trajan and Hadrian’s reigns).These three, while differing in detail all apparently stem from Poseidonius – who in turn depended on the ‘lost’ sections of Polybius, as well as referring to earlier manuals such as Aeneas Tacticus, Cineas, Pyrrhus of Epirus and his son Alexander, Clearchus and others, but as you have pointed out, Asclepiodotus’ figures “not less than 10 cubits” and “no longer than 12 cubits” simply re-inforce a figure of 19.5 ft maximum and minimum over 16 ft.( as you point out). If Asclepiodotus differs from Polybius, it must be because he prefers some other source as more accurate than Polybius….. ( assuming he is not using a different cubit! )
BTW, it is Aelian (xii) (not Asclepiodotus) who says “not shorter than 8 cubits…and must not exceed such a length as may allow a man to wield it with ease.”….again we can’t be sure what size cubit he means….. certainly a man may not wield anything over 20 ft “with ease”. A little later, in a passage that seems to be taken almost word for word from Polybius (XIV), Aelian refers to 'sarrisae' being originally 16 cubits, but 'now' 14 cubits. He seems to be using two different sources in two different places - the latter clearly Polybius. This is presumably why Connolly does not refer to him for 'sarissa' length.
On balance, I think when all is allowed for, it is most probable that most sarissas were around 18-20 ft long – which Connolly has demonstrated by reconstruction, is an eminently practical length. ( which is not to say that experiments might not have been undertaken with other lengths, but this would appear to be the common length)…..
Again, a fair point, but as I have emphasised, we are not trying to obtain accurate measurements anyway, since artists probably went by eye – all we can hope for is a reasonable approximation, and perhaps to be able to see what the artist was trying to illustrate. I think that this picture has enough similarities to the Alexander mosaic to say, as I did, that it is “consistent with” it, and a length of around 12 ft. ( And Connolly sees even more similarities). However, exclude it from our already slender ‘body of evidence’ if you wish….
I think the literature can shed some futher light too. Consider the passage you quoted from Asclepiodotus (I.3)
He is here describing the “close quarters” or Heavy Cavalry, and in fact describing various sub-types. Notice that only “some” of these Heavy Cavalry carry shields. Given the increased difficulty of handling with increasing length, we might reasonably expect that the shieldless Heavy cavalry would be the ‘xystophoroi’/Companion type and those with shields, ‘doratuphoroi’.
Now I realise that the passage is a tad ambiguous, and might be read so as to imply that “some” of the ‘xystophoroi’ carry shields, but I don’t think that is the natural meaning ( and why would some have shields and some not?). The subject of the sentence is the “close quarters” Heavy cavalry.
We can also compare this passage with the similar one of Arrian, also referring to the cavalry equipment:-
This is completely clear, and tells us that ‘xystophoroi’ and ‘kontophoroi’ were shieldless.
I would suggest that if we look at all the evidence – remembering that no-where, as far as I can recall, do we hear of Companions/xystophoroi carrying shields in the literary sources; the practical experiences of Markle, Connolly and our own John Conyard; together with the iconograhic evidence such as it is, then the picture that emerges is that those who carried the longest spears – the 12 ft ‘xyston’ and ‘kontos’ were essentially armoured shieldless cavalry.
Postscript: We might also wonder why this type of cavalry (‘xystophoroi'/Companion type) disappear from the order of battle in late Hellenistic times. We have seen from examples in the literature that on impact with enemy man/horse, the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ sometimes/often snapped. Once shields began to be commonplace among Heavy Cavalry, and taking the impact of the ‘xyston’, we might expect breakage to occur even more often, and it is likely that ‘xyston’ armed cavalry became ever more ineffective, in comparison to ‘doru’/ shielded cavalry. Perhaps they lingered on because of the ‘Alexander’s Companions tradition’, but what was needed was a weapon strong enough and rigid enough to penetrate shields without breaking – hence the replacement of the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ with the larger, heavier ( but not longer!) ‘kontos’/bargepole which needed two hands to wield.
So let us turn to literature, to see what additional evidence can be gleaned….
Ruben wrote:
Quote:And I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with your response!
Fair enough !.....
Quote:Connolly's solution is appealing in the ease with which it seemingly brings together the evidence, but the answer is unfortunately not as simple as he makes it out to be……..
Furthermore, Connolly simply ignores Asclepiodotus' measurement because he dates to the early 1st c. BC, despite the fact that Asclepiodotus is known to have drawn on solid earlier military manuals. It has been proven without a doubt that he drew in large part on Polybius for the portion of his manual dealing with the phalanx, and yet he declares that the sarissa was at most 12 cubits long, and at least 8; accounting for this requires a further examination of why his numbers differ from Polybius'. It is ironic, however that a figure of 12 Macedonian cubits reckoned by a Macedonian foot of 0.33 m does produce a length of 5.94 m or 19.5 feet matching Theophrastus' measurement quite nicely.
Yes, Connolly chooses to concentrate on those ‘who were there’ – Theophrastus for Philip/Alexander’s time, and Polybius for the end of the Macedonian phalanx era, and does not consider the later manuals of, Asclepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian, who all wrote in Roman times.( the former in the 1st C BC and the last two in Trajan and Hadrian’s reigns).These three, while differing in detail all apparently stem from Poseidonius – who in turn depended on the ‘lost’ sections of Polybius, as well as referring to earlier manuals such as Aeneas Tacticus, Cineas, Pyrrhus of Epirus and his son Alexander, Clearchus and others, but as you have pointed out, Asclepiodotus’ figures “not less than 10 cubits” and “no longer than 12 cubits” simply re-inforce a figure of 19.5 ft maximum and minimum over 16 ft.( as you point out). If Asclepiodotus differs from Polybius, it must be because he prefers some other source as more accurate than Polybius….. ( assuming he is not using a different cubit! )
BTW, it is Aelian (xii) (not Asclepiodotus) who says “not shorter than 8 cubits…and must not exceed such a length as may allow a man to wield it with ease.”….again we can’t be sure what size cubit he means….. certainly a man may not wield anything over 20 ft “with ease”. A little later, in a passage that seems to be taken almost word for word from Polybius (XIV), Aelian refers to 'sarrisae' being originally 16 cubits, but 'now' 14 cubits. He seems to be using two different sources in two different places - the latter clearly Polybius. This is presumably why Connolly does not refer to him for 'sarissa' length.
On balance, I think when all is allowed for, it is most probable that most sarissas were around 18-20 ft long – which Connolly has demonstrated by reconstruction, is an eminently practical length. ( which is not to say that experiments might not have been undertaken with other lengths, but this would appear to be the common length)…..
Quote:While I'm at it, I have a nit to pick with your using the Kinch tomb, as well. Firstly, the Kinch tomb spear cannot be accurately measured, because the head disappears behind the footman's shield, and where we would expect it to appear again between it and the man's body, there is damage to the wall. As such, the head could appear right where the shaft disappears, or it could appear right before the infantryman's body - we have no way of knowing, and that's a fairly significant difference in size, not even considering approximations based on artistic license.
Again, a fair point, but as I have emphasised, we are not trying to obtain accurate measurements anyway, since artists probably went by eye – all we can hope for is a reasonable approximation, and perhaps to be able to see what the artist was trying to illustrate. I think that this picture has enough similarities to the Alexander mosaic to say, as I did, that it is “consistent with” it, and a length of around 12 ft. ( And Connolly sees even more similarities). However, exclude it from our already slender ‘body of evidence’ if you wish….
Quote:I agree with you in large part. However, I have a problem when the entire categorization of a weapon like the xyston for a long span of time like the Hellenistic period is based on one author's measurement (Aelian, whom Connolly discounts when it comes to the numbers for the sarissa, but accepts for the xyston!) and one solid representation from the late 4th c. BC.Perhaps because Connolly thinks the late-writing Aelian got it wrong ( considering earlier evidence) for the ‘sarissa’,(see above, quoting two different lengths, presumably from different sources, for length) but right for the ‘xyston’ (8-10 cubits: 3.95 m – 4.95 m/ 12 ft 10 ins- 16 ft ). Ascepiodotus says simply “long spears like those of the phalanx” – which may simply mean tapered with a large counterweight i.e. similar type, rather than similar length, or even proportionately long to other cavalry spears, as the ‘sarissa’ was proportionately longer than Infantry spears.
Quote:Firstly, I think you are mistaking the chest strap for a continuation of the horseman's spear - look at the strap on the horse riding towards him. Secondly, the plane doesn't align exactly with the sarissa - it is as much lower than the sarissa as the sarissa is lower than the foremost cavalryman's spear. I'm sorry, but I think the only tenable interpretation is the second.I’ve looked in detail again, and I think the horse’s breast strap is the one angled up, which meets the ‘sarissa’/cavalry spear ( using interpretation 1 OR 2 ) in a “V”, therefore the horizontal line is the ‘sarissa’ or ‘cavalry spear’ - again it would be strange to have the 'breaststrap' exactly in line with 'sarissa'/cavalry spear. Secondly, on a blow-up, I can run a ruler along that horizontal line, so the alignment is darn close, especially on such a small piece, with a little ‘droop’ at each end – just like Connolly’s reconstructions. I would suggest either interpretation is equally likely…
I think the literature can shed some futher light too. Consider the passage you quoted from Asclepiodotus (I.3)
Quote:Now the cavalry which fights at close quarters uses, similarly, very heavy [or the heaviest] equipment, fully protecting both horses and men with armour,and employing long spears (makrois... tois dorasin) for which reason this arm of cavalry is also called doratophoron or xystophoron, or also thureophoron, when some bear very large oval (or lengthened) aspides for the purpose of protecting the horse as well.
He is here describing the “close quarters” or Heavy Cavalry, and in fact describing various sub-types. Notice that only “some” of these Heavy Cavalry carry shields. Given the increased difficulty of handling with increasing length, we might reasonably expect that the shieldless Heavy cavalry would be the ‘xystophoroi’/Companion type and those with shields, ‘doratuphoroi’.
Now I realise that the passage is a tad ambiguous, and might be read so as to imply that “some” of the ‘xystophoroi’ carry shields, but I don’t think that is the natural meaning ( and why would some have shields and some not?). The subject of the sentence is the “close quarters” Heavy cavalry.
We can also compare this passage with the similar one of Arrian, also referring to the cavalry equipment:-
Quote:“Of these (the cavalry), some carry spears ( doru), some pikes ( kontos, xyston), some lances (longche/lanchea); others use only missiles…..Of the former variety some carry oblong shields and are called ‘thureophoroi’; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes, and these are called ‘doratuphoroi’ or ‘kontophoroi’, though some call them ‘xystophoroi’.”
This is completely clear, and tells us that ‘xystophoroi’ and ‘kontophoroi’ were shieldless.
I would suggest that if we look at all the evidence – remembering that no-where, as far as I can recall, do we hear of Companions/xystophoroi carrying shields in the literary sources; the practical experiences of Markle, Connolly and our own John Conyard; together with the iconograhic evidence such as it is, then the picture that emerges is that those who carried the longest spears – the 12 ft ‘xyston’ and ‘kontos’ were essentially armoured shieldless cavalry.
Postscript: We might also wonder why this type of cavalry (‘xystophoroi'/Companion type) disappear from the order of battle in late Hellenistic times. We have seen from examples in the literature that on impact with enemy man/horse, the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ sometimes/often snapped. Once shields began to be commonplace among Heavy Cavalry, and taking the impact of the ‘xyston’, we might expect breakage to occur even more often, and it is likely that ‘xyston’ armed cavalry became ever more ineffective, in comparison to ‘doru’/ shielded cavalry. Perhaps they lingered on because of the ‘Alexander’s Companions tradition’, but what was needed was a weapon strong enough and rigid enough to penetrate shields without breaking – hence the replacement of the relatively thin single-handed ‘xyston’ with the larger, heavier ( but not longer!) ‘kontos’/bargepole which needed two hands to wield.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
