Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

I take back my use of the word wrong in this case, as Connolly makes no claim to have discovered the ultimate solution to the sarissa question. However, his analysis of the literary evidence is all but useless, not only because his calculation of the Macedonian cubit contradicts other solid evidence and because it is based on extremely shaky logic, but also because he declares that he, "not being a classicist," is not interested in those philological discussions which "are of "little practical relevance" and the discussion of which has been "fruitless," and yet he goes ahead and draws on Polybius' statement anyway, simply ignoring his declaration that the sarissa used to be 16 cubits in length. [...] I am rather opposed to Connolly's approach, which is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore all inconvenient literary evidence in favour of sweeping conclusions based on two literary references and extremely limited practical tests.

Indeed. It is most inconvenient that Polybios chose to write in his native language: (ancient) Greek. Any discussion of his text must proceed from that as does Walbank's commentary. To choose to ignore the philological evidence is to invite error. One might as well attempt to understand Chaucer via modern English and usage only.

To quote General Chang: "You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon"

Happy New Year all...