Macedonian Soldier Stele

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben, I should like to congratulate you on your whole series of posts in this thread, and if I could, I would certainly award you a 'laus'.......but cannot. x

And you too, since this has been an extremely interesting discussion.

Since you have brought the 'Kinch's tomb' rider back into the discussion, I think I'll respond by setting out why I believe that what is shown in the 'missing' section is a similar 12 ft or so weapon, like the one in my previous post wielded by Alexander, rather than something shorter......

At all events it seems the Kinch artist followed the original composition of the ' mosaic' ( Apelles?) fairly closely. That being so, it is more likely than not that the 'victim' is being skewered in similar fashion, with the 'xyston' point protruding through the victim. Significantly too, both 'butts/counterweights' are of the large 'spearhead' type. I have projected the same proportions from the 'mosaic' onto the 'Kinch' picture - and as can be seen it is quite consistent. To me, this is far more likely than a spear that ends somewhere at the shield or thereabouts, nor is it likely that the artist would show the 'victim' successfully blocking a thrust ( especially as he is clearly screaming in pain ! )

If, as I believe, this interpretation is more likely than not, then the similarities to your coin largely disappear. The Kinch Tomb rider is holding a tapered, counter-weighted 'xyston' near the end, with a 'spear-head' butt, just like the mosaic it's largely copied from.

The coin rider seems to be holding an untapered lance with a balance point much nearer its centre, with a conventional 'doru' butt, and which is clearly much shorter than the mosaic 'xyston' and probably, the Kinch's tomb rider 'xyston' - drawing also, based, as it likely is, on the same original depiction/painting.

I wrote up a long reply, but my computer, much like the laudes system here on RAT, decided to implode. At any rate, this is the short response. Though I agree that the weapon carried by the Kinch tomb cavalryman in general seems to be similar to that of Alexander on the Alexander mosaic, the fact is that it cannot be used as evidence, since we simply cannot tell how long the weapon was intended to be. In addition, because we only have one good example to compare it with in the Alexander mosaic, I think that undue emphasis is placed on that work (or its source painting), which in turn can lead us astray. We are both aware of how variable the lengths of shafted weapons can be in iconographic representations, and so relying on a single example is dangerous.

...not 'hung up' - I am aware of the old debate over the Greek, but wished to avoid what is in reality another red herring because whether it means 'from the beginning/of old' is pretty much the same thing and 'originally' is a good English translation. It is simply not relevant, and hair splitting as to whether Polybius meant Philip's reign or a little afterward....Moreover, as you yourself point out, it generally means 'from the beginning' anyway....not important because it is evidently drawn from an earlier writer, and Polybius is (rightly) skeptical because he goes on to say....

..."in reality/in fact" is actually stronger than 'in practice'.

Paul, you are still reading too much into these quotes. "Ex arches" is an ambiguous chronological phrase, and it does make a difference how we translate it, since that is the crux of this part of your argument! Polybius is exhibiting no skepticism whatsoever when he states "kata de ten harmogen ten pros ten aletheian dekatettaron;" the "pros" in that sentence implies chronological movement, and in this case "pros ten aletheian" does not mean "in reality" or "in fact" the way you take it, in the sense which the phrase has in English which implies the incorrectness of the prior statement (Greek had other ways of stating that), but is best translated as "in the present circumstances." Therefore, the most that can be read out of Polybius statement is a simple chronological division between the sarissae "ex arches" and those of his day. In this case, how "ex arches" is translated is important, but as I stated before, it is an ambiguous term which, if translated simply as "of old," provides no difficulty in interpreting Polybius' statement.

I can do no more than concur with Connolly when he says in his JRMES article referred to earlier:
"I do not wish to become involved in an argument over the exact meaning of Greek and Latin words. This approach has proved fruitless....the matter should be examined from a practical viewpoint."

And yet without doing so one cannot possibly hope to come up with a comprehensive answer to the question, and unsurprisingly this is exactly where Connolly goes wrong in his discussion. These words are important, and, given the emphasis that has been placed on them in this discussion, they cannot simply be glossed over. It is important to draw on philology, archaeology, and reenactment in a discussion such as this, but all must be considered and weighted appropriately, without undue emphasis on any one area.

I think Connolly has proved that in order to be practicable, and with a reasonable balance point ( just in front of where it is held) the sarissa must be tapered. That being so, we may treat it as a species of narrow cone. Any addition in length must have an increased diameter 'thick end' ( thinner at the sharp end would snap). Calculations show that increasing the length to 16 cubits would increase the volume by a factor of 2.3 ( more than double) and hence the weight similarly from Connolly's 4.05 kg (9 lbs) to 9.3 kg(20.4 lbs) !! *
Then consider that Connolly's 5.8 m/19 ft sarissa flexed quite a bit.........how much more would a 7.7m/26 ft sarissa flex/wobble ?
There is also the increased length of pike extending behind the pikeman to consider - the phalanx would have to increase it's depth / spacing between ranks.

And here is a perfect example of why reenactment, for instance, should not be weighed too heavily as the authoritative answer. There are too many variables which we cannot account for in reconstructions, and though they are obviously extremely helpful, we must be careful of drawing absolute conclusions. Connolly made the shaft of his sarissa from cherry wood, and yet Nick Sekunda has shown that sarissa shafts were almost certainly made of ash, as is suggested also by the fact that early Modern pike shafts were normally made of ash. The characteristics of ash are remarkable, as it is extremely strong relative to its weight and it is able to be grown suitable for use in creating spearshafts up to a length of 32 feet in length (!). I would suspect that similar experimentation carried out with an ash sarissa would produce significantly different results.

All in all, it would seem a 16 cubit/7.7 m/26 ft sarissa would be so impractical/unwieldy as to be all but impossible....and hence the original author from whom Polyaenus and/or Polybius obtained this figure was almost certainly exaggerating for the sake of the anecdote....
No wonder our sources, ancient and modern, are skeptical of such a figure !
As for Aelian's "8 cubit/12 ft minimum", I believe he chose this figure because anything less could be wielded single-handed ( e.g. the xyston, or Iphicrates spear). For the sake of completeness, you should also include Arrian's "16 ft", even if it is his arbitrary alteration of 16 cubits, as some believe.

Now indeed there is not much variation in size, especially since these measures are likely approximate anyway.

The figures speak for themselves in this matter - a range was in use from 13 to 26 feet.

As for the xyston, Connolly demonstrated that 15 ft is the upper limit, and anything much shorter than 12 ft would make it a 'kamax' instead, so it too has a very limited size range ! ( say 12-14 ft)

My point is that both weapons, whose 'secret' was the tapering length and counterweight, are only practical within quite narrow length limits, regardless of time or region.

Practicality too ( Connolly,Conyard) rules out a cavalry lance of 12-15 ft AND a large shield being wielded together, the more so as we have no unequivocal examples in literature or iconography of such a thing.

I am also skeptical of conclusions of practicality based on reenactment. What might be impractical for a horseman today may not have been so for a trained cavalryman of the Hellenistic period.

No, I don't believe I am confused, though perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough.It must be borne in mind that Arrian has 'updated' the hellenistic original somewhat, to include Roman practices, as I mentioned earlier.

As well as the unarmoured cavalry ( aphraktoi), Arrian says:
" Of the former variety [i.e. 'kataphraktoi'/armoured cavalry] some carry oblong shields and are known as 'Thureophoroi'; others fight without shields, merely with spears or pikes and are called 'doratophoroi'/spear-carriers or 'kontophoroi'/pike carriers, though some call them 'xystophoroi'."
Later in the same paragraph he re-inforces the idea that 'long lance' cavalry are shieldless when he says:
"In the service of the Romans some cavalry carry pikes/kontoi and charge in the fashion of the Alani and sauromatae; [i.e. shieldless - iconography also shows that the earliest Roman 'kontophoroi' who appear in Hadrian's time are apparently shieldless]; others are armed with the 'lanchea'. Their long flat blades sword hangs from their shoulders and they carry oblong shields, {thureoi] and iron helmets, a woven breastplate [mail] and small greaves"
i.e. the usual Roman Heavy cavalry of the time - lanchea armed 'Thureophoroi' (c.f. Josephus).

Once again, Paul, I think you are reading too much into this quote. This section is a separate paragraph from the standard breakdown of the Hellenistic cavalry, and is quite clearly differentiated from it. In between the discussion of the armament of kataphraktoi and this statement is a long paragraph discussing the aphraktoi and their armament, and the short section on the Roman cavalry is clearly introduced as an addendum to the standard military manual discussion. If we take this statement alone (apart from the archaeological evidence for Roman cavalry), it reads that some cavalry carry kontoi like the Alans or Sauromations, and others carry longchai, but the elucidation of equipment following this is clearly meant to refer to all cavalry generally. No reference is made to the further equipment of the one category or the other; there is merely a statement that Roman cavalry generally carry flat spathae, long thureoi, iron helmets and mail cuirasses, and small greaves, and no specification is made as to which type of cavalry carry what.

As I stated before, the Greek in the cavalry portions of these manuals only tells us what offensive arms non-shielded cavalrymen carried; no statement is made as to what offensive arms the shielded Hellenistic cavalrymen were armed with.