Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

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.

...since I have argued that the KinchTomb artist copied the composition of the 'mosaic' source, I would have to agree that it really only represents a 'single' source - but it is arguably our most 'realistic' source. Incidently, if we restore the sarcophagus 'xyston' of Alexander overhand using Connolly's balance point of 30% along the shaft from the rear, unsurprisingly it works out at roughly 12-14 ft.

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.

'Wrong' in what sense? His point that we can't read too much into Polybius words, especially regarding a bygone time where he is quoting an unknown writer, seems valid to me, especially since we have this "16 cubits" ( since the writer is unknown we can't even begin to guess whose cubit is being referred to - if for example, Athenian 487 mm, then 26 ft/7.7m, if 'Polybian/Macedonian' of 417 mm or so, then a more reasonable, but still rather long, 21 ft/6.6 m). We have this on the one hand, and all the evidence of the other sources, of mediaeval/renaissance pikes, and of modern reconstruction on the other. Where, in all military history, is there evidence of a real pike possibly some 26 ft/7.7m long actually being used ?

Perhaps in this instance we can find consensus in agreeing that:
" almost all 'sarissae' were likely to have been between 18 and 21 ft long (5.5 and 6.4 m)"?

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 have no trouble at all in agreeing this, and that a holistic approach should be adopted.... D
The problem lies in "weighted appropriately", for it is clear that it is in this aspect that we differ, with you leaning toward taking the literature literally, and I toward Connolly's practical/functional approach for where, as here, the literature gives too broad a range which it is nigh on impossible to choose between, and hence is inconclusive. It is purely a difference of emphasis, and as it now appears, even then we can approach something like consensus/probable resolution.

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.

...Happily not in this instance. As was referred to in the "Weight and grip of the Sarissa" thread a few months ago, Connolly made both a cherrywood (close to cornel) and a seasoned Ash sarissa, the former weighing 4.050 kg the latter 4.22 kg (8.9 lbs and 9.3 lbs) - a difference of just 0.4 kg/6.4 oz.

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.

...in some instances you are right, and re-enactment can certainly lead to demonstrably wrong conclusions, but I think it is going a little far to suggest that a 'trained cavalryman' then can do what a 'trained modern horseman' now cannot. That sounds a little like the old 'men now are not the men of yore' myth. Most of those 'trained cavalrymen' in Hellenistic armies, were, as far as we know 'part-timers' ( except for nomad steppe horseman) who would hardly compare to modern professional horsemen in skill - but I don't want to start another debate on that !
Re-enactment/reconstruction has as many pitfalls as other forms of evidence, but is nevertheless valuable , particularly for separating the possible from the impossible....

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.

I don't believe so - I prefaced my answer by pointing out that Arrian had 'updated' the Hellenistic manual to include Roman practice. Nor do I think that one should 'take this statement alone'. Arrian's "Of these" means, I think, of the cavalry generally ( not just the unarmoured types) referred to at the start of the paragraph. ( later he uses "of the former variety" when wishing to refer to armoured cavalry alone). He specifically tells us that 'doratophoroi'/'kontophoroi'/'xystophoroi' are shieldless, useful for us moderns, but the audience of his own day would know that, for example, 'kontos' armed cavalry didn't carry shields - just as a modern reader would know that a modern U.S. Tank Regiment is equipped with 'Abrams' tanks, and a writer wouldn't bother to say so ( unless they were an exception equipped with something else) - so I think you are making too much of a thing out of the fact that no other equipment is listed in the sources.
I also think that your distinction that we are not told what the 'Thureophoroi' carried offensively is a little artificial too - in the quote I mentioned before, it is quite clear that Roman 'Thureophoroi'/ Auxiliary cavalry at least carry 'lanchea/longche', and I should have continued the quote:

"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. They carry 'lanchea' for two purposes, to throw at long range when required and to fight at close range, and, should it become necessary to engage in hand-to-hand combat, they fight with their broad swords.They also carry small axes with a circular edge."

i.e. the usual Roman Heavy cavalry of the time - lanchea armed 'Thureophoroi' (c.f. Josephus).

As to your last statement, we are told that 'Tarentines' ( shielded light cavalry) carry javelins, and that 'long lancers' are shieldless, so we can surely infer that 'shielded lancers' carried something in between - the 6 ft or so 'lanchea', or perhaps an 8-9ft 'lance'/spear.
That later, shielded Macedonian cavalry were javelin or 'longche' armed is inferred from the mention of their consternation at being charged by Roman cavalry ( so they weren't armed with 'xysta' or similar 'charge' weapon) referred to by Livy, who also refers to 'spear' armed Aetolian cavalry; and similarly Pyrrhus, who may have introduced shielded cavalry to Greece/Macedonia, is mentioned carrying a shield and fighting with missile weapons.Polybius too, when speaking of the adoption by the Romans of Greek cavalry spears, with butts and shields uses the generic 'dorata'/'spear' (Polyb VI.25.9) - not any of the words for 'long lance'. Indeed, I would be reasonably confident that in all our sources, there is no reference to a shield and long lance combination.