Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

I'd totally forgotten that Polybius mentions explicitly that the sarissa changed in length! Thank for posting it.

..but he says this on the assumption that the “original design” was “16 cubits”! If we accept the evidence of Theophrastus, it was not. I believe that evidence is to be preferred to that of the unknown author of the Polyaenus anecdote, with its quite possibly exaggerated length ( see previous). Furthermore, even though Polybius evidently believed the “original design” ( and probably wrongly) was “16 cubits” he adds “and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen;” ….is he not saying that the ‘original design’ is impractical, hence "in practice 14 cubits"?

Why must we assume that Polybius' statement is based on a "story" about the "original design," or that he is even referring to Theophrastus' day? At least 150 years separate the times when Theophrastus and Polybius were writing, so the sarissa could have undergone varied changes in that span, and Polybius could be referring to any point in between.

Because he says “original design” which must mean that of Philip/Alexander’s day.

Why is the assertion of Polybius, a man clearly well-read in military matters, that the sarissa was once 16 cubits unreliable? This smacks of cherrypicking the evidence.

Because Polybius is not omniscient ( nor is anyone, of course). Certainly, as I wrote previously, Polybius may have believed on the basis of the anonymous author also used by Polyaenus for his anecdote, or something similar, that the “original design” was 16 cubits, but as Paralus has pointed out, he was almost certainly unaware of Theophrastus’ work, well-read though he may have been. That he himself did not believe that a 16 cubit ‘sarissa’ was practical is implied from his words.

Nor is it ‘cherrypicking’ evidence to ‘weigh it up’ and consider evidence critically. Obviously, even within a single author, some evidence is more reliable than others. For example, when Polybius says that ‘sarissae’ of his own day were 14 cubits, that, being the evidence of his own experience, may be seen as reliable. When he talks of the ‘original design’ some 150 years earlier, he is clearly drawing on someone else, and it is only as reliable as that someone else – most today would prefer the contemporary evidence of Theophrastus….and that is precisely what Connolly has done.

No evidence at all for it... other than the statement of a well-informed Hellenistic military officer, and the testimony of later military manuals that drew from those of the early Hellenistic period.

As must be plain, ‘well-informed’ isn’t omniscient, and those later manuals, written long after the last ‘Sarissaphoroi’ had gone, while relying on earlier works all shy away from Polybius’ “16 cubits”. Aelian dutifully quotes Polybius,( 16 cubits originally, but in practice 14 cubits) but also says minimum 8 cubits, and not to exceed a length which will allow a man to wield it with ease. Arrian arbitrarily changed “16 cubits” to “16 feet”. Asclepiodotus says 10-12 cubits, consistent with Theophrastus for the early sarissa and Polybius for the late one. Clearly all, including Polybius, recognised there was something wrong with a pike 16 cubits/25ft/ 7.7 m long! And mediaeval/Renaissance experience and modern reconstructions entirely support this.

There can be little doubt that initially and at the end of the period, the sarissa was between 18-20 ft long, and that this was its optimum length. All there really is for any longer length in between times is the source of Polyaenus’ anecdote, likely seen by Polybius and quite possibly an exaggeration. Many have postulated, like Paralus, that experimentation with increased lengths took place, and that is certainly possible, even likely – how else would the writers/tacticians know what was “practical” ? However, like Connolly, I am inclined to think that 18-20 ft was the common length for armies taking the field, though I don’t doubt there was some small variety between armies and perhaps times.

And Connolly in dealing foremost with Theophrastus and Polybius is making a good start of his discussion, as any debate over the length of the sarissa must invariably begin with our most reliable sources. That doesn't mean, however, that the evidence of the military manuals can just be discarded because it is inconvenient. Despite the convenient dismissal that these sources are "late," as you yourself state, it is well-known that they drew directly or indirectly from earlier Hellenistic manuals, and this has been shown from direct comparison before. Any examination which hopes to come to a full conclusion must take into account all evidence, no matter how difficult that may be, and Connolly shows poor scholarship in not doing so.

In other words, the simple figure of 19 feet is not the solution to the sarissa debate that Connolly states that it is. All our evidence points to there being a range of lengths in use both at any particular point in time and throughout the Hellenistic period: Theophrastus gives an upper limit, implying that there were smaller sarissae in use; Polybius acknowledges that the sarissa had shortened somewhat to reach the length of his day; and the authors of the military manuals give various maximum and minimum figures for sarissa lengths which differ again…… In other words, he accepts the evidence when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't without further explanation. That's just plain bad scholarship.

That is rather harsh on Connolly. He will have been precluded from setting out and discussing in full every source and why he felt them more or less reliable for reasons of space in the journal, so concentrates on those sources he does believe reliable. Furthermore he does mention ALL sources and briefly explains why he does not consider the late sources in detail, referring the reader to an article by J. Mixter which does. Connolly’s article is not primarily about the length of the sarissa and is more concerned with the practicalities of reconstruction than weighing up the sources.

And going by this "reasonable approximation," most of the images I posted compare very well with the Kinch tomb, and thus their spears are consisted with a length of 12 feet.

That is simply a flat re-statement of your position, which I don’t agree with, for reasons I set out earlier ( see previous posts). The reader must look and decide for himself.
Were you to assert that shielded ‘lancers’ armed with an 8-9 ft ‘Doru’ fought at close quarters/hand-to-hand, I would have no trouble in entirely agreeing with you. However it seems clear to me that the weight of all the evidence together does not support shielded cavalry wielding 12 ft ‘xystoi/kontoi’, especially the Hellenistic manuals – and again the modern experience of Markle, Connolly,Conyard, and I’m willing to bet, anyone else supports this view.

Firstly, Arrian divides the cavalry up into kataphraktoi and aphraktoi, a division which is entirely different from that of Asclepiodotus.

‘kataphraktoi’( lit :covered in) simply means armoured cavalry, (not to be be confused with ‘cataphracts’ as a specific sub-type, though confusion creeps in because our Roman writers were more familiar with 'cataphracts' as fully armoured from head to toe types, rather than the Macedonian and early Hellenistic meaning of just 'armoured'); and ‘aphraktoi’ (lit:uncovered) unarmoured cavalry. Ascepiodotus too refers to “the cavalry which fights at close quarters uses a very heavy equipment fully protecting both horses and men with defensive armour” – clearly the same as Arrian’s ‘kataphraktoi’. His “branch that fights at long range” and the “intermediate variety” (that do both) are differently categorised, but that is simply so he can have a three-fold division, as for the infantry.

Aelian says, similarly to Arrian:
“(the cavalry) are divided into ‘kataphraktoi’ and those more lightly armed.The ‘kataphraktoi’ are completely armed and so are their horses.The other kinds of cavalry are lancers (doratuphoroi) and those armed with missile weapons. The lancers are those who join in close combat with the enemy, and charge with their pikes, or lances ( doru). Of these, some carry shields and are called ‘shield carriers’(thureophoroi); others use lances only ( doru) without the encumbrance of shields; these are properly called lancers ( dorutophoroi) and by some they are called ‘pikemen’ ( xystophoroi)……

Again, it is quite clear that some lancers/close quarters fighters are shielded, and some - those "properly called" 'dorutophoroi/xystophoroi’ do not carry shields.
Note also that ‘xyston’ is a word used by Makedones for the long 12-15 ft lance whereas Greeks tended to use the more generic ‘doru’( great spear).

Of these (the aphraktoi), some are doratophoroi or kontophoroi or longchophoroi, and others are only mounted akrobolistai. The doratophoroi approaching the ranks of the enemy and fighting them off with dorata or kontoi thrusting out in the assault like the Alans and the Sauromatians...


No reference is made to the xyston. Then, Arrian refers back to the kataphraktoi (4.4-5):


And of the former category (the kataphraktoi), some also bear the 'thureo's and are called 'thureophoroi', and some without these (shields) fight only with dorata and kontoi, who indeed also are called by themselves doratophoroi or kontophoroi, and under which are the xystophoroi.

I think this is a somewhat clumsy translation – compare the same piece I earlier posted…

"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’.”

All he is saying is that those without shields are called only by the name of their primary weapon

I don’t believe that is the natural meaning at all. I think it is fairly clear that they fight ONLY with doru/xyston, and no shield, in both Arrian and Aelian.

- he's making no commentary on the primary weapon of those thureophoroi. All that we can take from this about the armament of the thureophoroi is implicitly that they carried either dorata, kontoi, or xysta.

I don’t think that is the case at all. It is clear that the ‘Doru’ (Gk) or ‘xyston’ (mak) and ‘kontos’ armed cavalry are un-shielded. ( i.e. long-lance - 12-15 ft- armed cavalry are unshielded - any confusion arises over the use of the more generic Greek word 'doru')

So, Asclepiodotus and Arrian are basically in agreement (though Arrian's binary distinction of "kataphraktos/aphraktos" is not made so clearly by Asclepiodotus) that the heavily armed, close-combat cavalry are broken down into a few groups:

And indeed Aelian……

1. Thureophoroi - so named because they carried shields.

Yes, armoured close-quarter, shielded cavalry

2. Doratophoroi - so named because they only carried dorata.
3. Kontophoroi - so named because they only carried kontoi.
4. Xystophoroi -so named because they only carried xysta.

Correct – the last three sub-categories of close-quarter armoured cavalry are shieldless. The differences between the sources, drawing from a probable common Hellenistic source are that Arrian ‘updates’ the source – leaving out for example details of obsolete weaponry such as chariotry and elephants, and including details of Roman practice e.g. that the shielded cavalry are 'lanchea' armed.

No comment is made on the main weapon of the thureophoroi.

….except Arrian’s ‘lanchea’ – and if the long-lanced cavalry are shieldless, it follows that shielded cavalry armed with generic ‘doru’ are probably carrying the 8-9 ft variety, remembering that ‘xyston’ was not a common Greek term ( being Macedonian) and that the ‘generic ‘doru’ - covering both - is likely to have been used by greek writers.

I don't believe our views are terribly far apart, other than some disagreement over shielded cavalry carrying long lances - you think they did, and I think not......but I do believe the evidence, including that of modern reconstructions, tends to favour the view that long-lanced armoured cavalry were unshielded.