Macedonian Soldier Stele

[MeinPanzer]

I agree that this discussion is straying pretty far from its original path, so after addressing a few points, let's see if we can't get it back on track.

..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"?

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

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.

You seem to be totally hung up on Polybius' exact words of "original design," and yet you are not even consulting the Greek. Polybius comments that the sarissa was 16 cubits "according to the design ex arches" (18.29.2); "ex arches" generally means "from the beginning," but it can also simply mean "of old" (LSJ s.v. arche). Therefore, it's an ambiguous chronological statement, and one that certainly need not only be read as "in the day of Philip II."

And while we're at it, let's address this "in practice" quote. The actual statement is "to de ton sarison megethos esti kata men ten ex arches hupothesin hekkaideka pechon, kata de ten harmogen ten pros ten aletheian dekatettaron" (18.29.2), which translates literally as "the size of sarissae according to the design ex arches is 16 cubits, and according to the adjustment (or gradation) to reality (i.e. in fact) 14 cubits." The phrase "pros ten aletheian" has no connotation of practicality; it is merely a statement of contemporary state of things.

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.

This is a re-statement because I didn't even realize it until I directly compared the Kinch depiction with some of the others I posted. This image below is the clearest example I can provide. Even given the different proportions, there can be no doubt that the spear of the horseman on the coinage of Cibyra is comparable in length to the Kinch example.

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... arison.JPG

So, if you take the Kinch tomb to be depicting a xyston, then there is no reason to dismiss the weapons of some of these shielded cavalrymen as being "out of proportion" with the size of the xyston.

‘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)……

Aelian is the only one of the manuals for which I don't have the Greek, but I'd be very curious to hear what word is translated as "pike" in the sentence "the lancers are those who join in close combat with the enemy, and charge with their pikes." Could you provide the Greek so that this can be decided without the muddling of translation?

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).

I totally agree, and this is what I was stating before - that all that we can discern with certainty from the manuals is that there are lancers with shields, whose armament we are not informed of, and then there are those without shields who are called by their main weapon as doratophoroi or 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’.”

That's because it's a literal translation of the Greek, and the last portion of your translation is plain wrong. The Greek reads "hoi de kai <idios> doratophoroi e kontophoroi onomazontai, estin de hupo hon xustophoroi" (4.4-5). This is translated as "who indeed also (or even) <appropriately> are called doratophoroi or kontophoroi, and under whom are the xystophoroi." It is unfortunate that hupo is an ambiguous word in this context, and it is not clear what is meant by "under whom are the xystophoroi." However, this doesn't really affect the main gist of the passage.

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.

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')

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.

….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.

Paul, I think you are confused here. Arrian only mentions that the aphraktoi are longchophoroi in 4.2 ("The unarmoured wing are the opposite. And some of these are doratophoroi or kontophoroi or longchophoroi, and others are akrobolistai alone"). He never states that kataphraktoi are longchophoroi, nor does he mention longchai at all in connection with them. Since we are in agreement that the military manuals unanimously refer to the non-shielded heavy cavalrymen as carrying dorata, kontoi, and xysta, perhaps you could point me to where a reference is made to the offensive weapon of the thureophoroi.

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.

So, with this convenient summary, we can return to the main thrust of this discussion. Let's calculate the actual lengths of these figures based on the best current estimate of the Macedonian cubit (0.33 m) and the Athenian cubit (.487 m).

12 cubits (Theophrastus), measured in Athenian cubits: 5.84 m, 19.17 feet
16 cubits (Polybius, Polyaenus, and Aelian), measured in Macedonian cubits: 7.92 m, 25.98 feet
14 cubits (Polybius and Aelian), measured in Macedonian cubits: 6.93 m, 22.74 feet
Minimum 8 cubits, measured in Macedonian cubits: 3.96 m, 12.99 feet
10-12 cubits (Asclepiodotus), measured in Macedonian cubits: 4.95-5.94 m, 16.24-19.49 feet

The upper lengths do indeed cluster around 20 feet, which was likely the norm, but we also have those minimum figures and the 16 cubits of Polybius and Polyaenus. It can clearly be seen that sarissae of a variety of lengths (between 8 and 16 cubits) were wielded over time and perhaps also contemporary with one another. You disagreed that the sarissa changed length over time, and so disagreed with my assertion that the xysta likely did also; however, given the fact that you yourself have established that the sarissa varied in size, we can surely agree that this very likely also could have happened with the xyston, whether lengthening or shortening. And indeed if we were only to have Aelian's testimony on the length of the sarissa, as is the case with the xyston, then we would equally be misled into thinking that there was no variety in length.

So, it is not improbable that the xyston changed length over time. If we take the Kinch tomb to represent a xyston, and we see that the length of the lances of some of the representations of shielded lancers compares quite closely with that representation, then there is no reason to dismiss these weapons as not being xysta. Furthermore, though the military manuals don't explicitly state the armament of the thureophoroi cavalrymen, they do state that close combat cavalrymen in general used the doru, xyston, and kontos, so we may infer that they could have used either dorata or xysta.