The Dory

[Kineas]

Sorry that I'm late to respond.

Paul 9(B) no, balance has nothing to do with it. No one would fight with an unbalanced weapon...

Again, though--if you have a long spear, however well balanced, the MASS of the part in front of your hand--no matter how you counter-weight it--will be easily moved by a short fulcrum (the face of my shield, or my spear point/haft) with a hard blow--and you will have enormous difficulty (in terms of the speed of hand to hand combat) getting it in line again. In fact, in every circumstance, your opponent, armed with a short spear or a sword, will have you down--and dead.

As usual at this point, may I suggest you build some spears and try using them? Honestly--this is something you only have to see once! I wish we had video from last weekend.

Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up. Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.

Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent. Fine--if that's the logic, then let's ask--why lengthen a spear, if no one is going to use it at long range? I'm pretty sure you, Paul, believe in Othismos. Okay--if you know that all your hoplites pack in to close range, why give them longer spears? Please don't tell me that it's to kill men in the second or third rank--no one in hand to hand combat thinks that way. Men fight the man in front of them, or perhaps to one side or the other. But if you believe that spears grew longer in the 420s, then I assume you think they got longer because a long spear was a better weapon? Or do I have this wrong?

And my I point out from a prior thread that, as sarauters are hollow, they have very little weight. There's no real counterbalance. further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt. Still, to be fair, even the shorter taper and the lighter sarauter will combine to sabotage your argument because the balance point will still be--pretty much in the middle. Nicholas, who's on this list, just completed a double-tapered 10 foot dory with a sarauter that weighs the same as the head. the balance point--the middle.

Overall, I find this thread frustrating, because I feel that a few of you are arguing from a few isolated piece of art to a general conclusion that flies in the face of the rest of the evidence. I think that it would be fairer to say that the Greeks always (at least from the 8th C.) knew about all sorts of weapons--long and short spears, and probably pikes, too, by sea and by land. In the late 5th century, as the quality of hoplites dropped, all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.

And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day. It is possible to rationalize each instance of the Macedonian infantry's failure to win a battle, but taken as an aggregate, they fail--overall--to beat even lack lustre hoplites. Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!

Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better. ) )

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up. Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.

....I would concur with this view, pikes are about 'mass effect' not individual fighting - but I might not so readily agree that swordsmen make short work of them. In all three clashes between Pila and Sarissa, the Phalanx held it's own frontally, as you would expect, but once its formation was disrupted, quickly succumbed - and that was the Phalanx's weakness as Polybius noted.

Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent.

Whatever makes you think that? D lol: ....Quite the opposite! I am for the bulk of Hoplite battle being spearplay, and a sceptic of Paul B's extreme form of othismos, as I thought you would have gathered by now. To my mind 'othismos' tended to take place after both sides were tired/exhausted, or if one side was seen to be wavering.

One observes the phenomenon of increasing length of spears made possible by tapering/smaller heads/larger sauroters - but the traditional dory was not replaced and did not disappear. The trend might have something to do with the increasing numbers of cavalry on the battlefield or any of a dozen reasons.

further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt.

I have seen one or two examples of 'double' tapered spears, but many clearly show a taper from butt end to point. Have you observed the opposite in the iconography, then ?

all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.

I think it was the increasingly complex nature of warfare, rather than lack of trained Hoplites that saw these trends occur - I don't believe that Hoplite quality decreased.Rather, with the increase of full-time mercenaries, the growth of permanent epilektoi ( picked men), and just the increasing professionalism generally led to a decided improvement of the quality of Hoplite forces over the peasant-farmer militia of the 6th C BC.

And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day. It is possible to rationalize each instance of the Macedonian infantry's failure to win a battle, but taken as an aggregate, they fail--overall--to beat even lack lustre hoplites. Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!

Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better.

Steady on ! I didn't say the sarissa was "superior", at least not initially. Simply that the sarissa was the logical extreme of this design trend in spears. I'd agree with you that there is no clear-cut example of Philip or Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx decisively beating a Hoplite one. I'd also agree that Philip's retreat at Chaeronea was unlikely to be feigned - the victors write the history, after all!
Against that is the fact that most city-states in Hellenistic times ended up with their Phalanx armed "in the Macedonian manner" - which does not mean it was superior, merely perceived that Macedon was victorious, and therefore their systems to be copied....

[PMBardunias]

Paul 9(B) no, balance has nothing to do with it. No one would fight with an unbalanced weapon...

Again, though--if you have a long spear, however well balanced, the MASS of the part in front of your hand--no matter how you counter-weight it--will be easily moved by a short fulcrum (the face of my shield, or my spear point/haft) with a hard blow--and you will have enormous difficulty (in terms of the speed of hand to hand combat) getting it in line again.

If you go back and read you'll see this is exactly what I said. It is not a questions of backweighted-vs midbalanced spear of the same length, but of comparing a spear with a second spear that fundamentally handles like a longer spear.

In fact, in every circumstance, your opponent, armed with a short spear or a sword, will have you down--and dead.

If we follow this logic a swordsman should always beat a spearman of any length which is folly in massed combat. Perhaps the problem is that you have never faced an opponent who is well trained to the 8' tapered dory.

As usual at this point, may I suggest you build some spears and try using them? Honestly--this is something you only have to see once! I wish we had video from last weekend.

I have built and used a variety of spears, I am fully confident in what I said- in fact you backed up all of my assertions with your experience.

Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up.

This is simply untrue. A longer spear guarantees the first strike. If a man is well trained this may be all he needs. Think of the well trained Napoleonic lancers like the Poles- not the crappy later imitations. They only had a single strike. Remember as well that this is group combat. A phalanx with longer spears can simply keep you at bay if you attempt to spear fence with shorter spears rather than close shield to shield.

Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.

Christian, read Polybius on the phalanx/legion comparison. The front of a macedonian sarissa phalanx was impregnable. Paullus crapped his pants at Pydna facing one. The only example I know of where a sarissa phalanx was actually broken into frontally, as opposed to flanked or penetrated through gaps in the line, was by Cleonymus of Sparta. He had his front rankers drop their weapons and grab the enemy sarissa.

Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent.

You do me a small injustice, since I believe in a period of doratismos before othismos, but Paul M-S espouses ONLY spear fencing.

Fine--if that's the logic, then let's ask--why lengthen a spear, if no one is going to use it at long range? I'm pretty sure you, Paul, believe in Othismos. Okay--if you know that all your hoplites pack in to close range, why give them longer spears? Please don't tell me that it's to kill men in the second or third rank--no one in hand to hand combat thinks that way. Men fight the man in front of them, or perhaps to one side or the other. But if you believe that spears grew longer in the 420s, then I assume you think they got longer because a long spear was a better weapon? Or do I have this wrong?

Yes, the added reach was surely beneficial when two phalanxes engaged in doratismos. I was hard on Paul's progression of spear-to-sarissa because functionally he is on the wrong track as to how the spear itself developed. He is completely correct in thinking "reach" became longer over the classical to hellenistic period, forcing a jump to 2 handed spears.

And my I point out from a prior thread that, as sarauters are hollow, they have very little weight. There's no real counterbalance.

Points are also hollow and small, sauroters surely weighed as much if not more than they did even hollow.

further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt. Still, to be fair, even the shorter taper and the lighter sarauter will combine to sabotage your argument because the balance point will still be--pretty much in the middle. Nicholas, who's on this list, just completed a double-tapered 10 foot dory with a sarauter that weighs the same as the head. the balance point--the middle.

You cannot taper a "long fore-length" and a "short rear-length" when both head and sauroter are of equal weight without ending up with a balance point between the long fore and short rear section not in the middle. He must have tapered equal length of spear from the midpoint- which does nothing but lighten the dory.

I think that it would be fairer to say that the Greeks always (at least from the 8th C.) knew about all sorts of weapons--long and short spears, and probably pikes, too, by sea and by land. In the late 5th century, as the quality of hoplites dropped, all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.

Troop quality surely increased in the late 5th c !!! The rise of highly trained units like the "picked 1,000" of Argos and the sacred band at Thebes are two examples of this and direct attempts to match Spartan professionalism. The rise of the professional soldier is a hallmark of this period.

Surely many weapons were known- the dorudrepanon is a famously comic example. Axes may have been seen on a battlefield early on, but these and other such weapons were never common in Greece. There were varous other weapons seen in regions outlying Greece.

And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day.

You are correct in that Phillip surely created the Sarissaphoroi as a means of creating a indigenous corps that could stand up to well trained hoplites. (note they are well trained contra the notion above). They did this by keeping hoplites a bay with their longer reach and denser spear hedge- preventing othismos. I love hoplites, I'm a hoplophile, but even I cannot make hoplites superior to sarissaphoroi. Why did Cleomenes III convert his hoplites to Sarissaphoroi prior to Sellasia if they were not percieved to be dominant? Surely he had no illusions about winning a cavalry battle. Hoplites were no better at breaking into the front of a sarissa phalanx than romans were. When the macedonians become very well trained we do not see them reverting to hoplites.

[Kineas]

I am sorry.

First, I hate it when folks on line misunderstand and.or mis-state my argument, so as I'm guilty of that, I apologize.

I committed another sin in attacking your argument while failing to provide my argument--somethign that smacks of criticism without redeeming value.

So--I still think that the long spear argument is backwards, and I've face competent opponents with every spear length--some far more competent than me. that's why I'm rock solid in my assertion--the long spear is about morale, not about fighting.

I'l go further and state what I believe. I am not a technological reductionist. I don't think weapons play very much role in war, beyond the obvious. i don't think that one army defeats another because their kit is better--that's a modern view born of the discrepancies Westerners began to note starting with the cartridge rifle, and then reasoned back over the ages. Wargamers love such arguments. But weapons, and armor, as such, don't have much impact.

What they DO impact is morale. Armor IS morale--the better armoured a man is, the safer he feels,and more likely he is to face fire and/or spearpoints. Armoured cap a pied, a man may even feel invulnerable. I always find, when I face a 2nd C. AD legionnaire, that they must have had awesome morale, and caused fear in their opponents--just from the quality of their kit.

That said, what I do believe is that sociological and cultural factors outweigh the technological and the intellectual (like drill, or martial arts). Cultures and societies win wars because the infrastructure of one society can support the pace and strain of conflict better than another. weapons and technologies reflect society--seldom the other way around. As an extreme example, Rome would conquer Gaul, not because her soldiers were better, or even better armed and armoured, but because Rome could better arm and armour EVERY man, and send an apparently inexhaustible supply, whereas any individual Gallic chief had only so many men with a chain shirt and a good sword--and so on. This argument is familiar and I won't labor it.

In Archaic and Classical Greece, it seems to me, all states (but Sparta was the best example) had some (fairly small) number of aristocratic warriors (that's their perception, and perhaps Hanson would call them middling farmers and perhaps other people would call them something else.) As the power of the emerging polis expanded, the need for soldiers increased, and various political and social ways were sought to increase soldier numbers and capability--again, Sparta is the most extreme example. Sparta created a system that allowed the largest possible number of men to behave like traditional aristocrats--to live by hunting and war.

Other states sought other solutions the the problem--in Athens, the gymnasium/Palestrina system was generated to allow the largest number of men to have the best possible athletic training.

I would suggest that all of that training was to allow men to bear the weight of armor for the longest time. Late Archaic hoplites wear bronze breastplates, greaves, and sometimes thigh guards, occasionally arm guards, full Corinthian helmets, and, of course, the aspis. As you know, wearing armour for any length of time requires conditioning and practice. Fighting in armour is very different from fighting without.

Of course, as early as Marathon, we read that the desperate Athenians began to put slaves or newly freed men in the rear ranks... they could not have been trained or armoured, and perhaps they started an opposite social trend--toward the unarmoured, virtually untrained hoplite. Certainly Thebes in the 360s was arming slaves.

To my mind, the "democratization" or the warrior--whether it was a phalanx, whether that warrior is called a hoplite--probably led to a massive diminution in fighting skills--and in armour ownership and armour wearing. As fewer men owned armor, the athletic skills that set fitness at a societal premium also probably waned--certainly did, if we believe Isocrates and such speakers in the fourth century, the level of fitness was waning. When the 30 Tyrants tok over, they wantesd to restrict hoplite status to just 6000 citizens. While this is always sited as a sign of their oligarchy, you have to wonder if they aren't just trying to put the clock back in terms of "hwat makes a hoplite."

This would fit with other changes in society--the secularization of wealth, for instance. The decline in political volunteerism that led to the changes in the way choirs were run and paid for, or naval expenditures--or the training of ephebes, all of which are part of the same trend that can be seen, for example, in Menander's comedies--a decline in civic awareness and a desire to avoid duties that had been viewed as privileges just a few generations before.

If you accept this (and I don't expect anyone will without a good scrap!) then it seems likely that the longer spear is a sign of less armor and badly trained hoplites--badly trained as individuals, that is, lacking in the physique and the money to carry off the armor and the hand to hand fighting which (I think) characterized the Persian Wars and before. They may have been much better trained en mass--heck, by 380 they may even have drilled!

[PMBardunias]

If you accept this (and I don't expect anyone will without a good scrap!)

I don't have a problem with the general concept. Surely the phalanx developed as a means of using larger armies of poorer trained troops to best effect. Any time that armies expand quickly they will face a loss of quality. Where I think you go wrong is that by the late 5th century Poleis are actively countering this. They are training elite units and hiring well trained mercenaries. Phillips first sarissaphoroi may have been poorly trained and huddled behind their long sarissa, but this force quickly became exceptionally well trained compared to early hoplite forces. There must have been a percieved benefit to the length in order for them to keep it. Polybios, a man with first hand experience, shows this (book 18):

The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength

I see no evidence that hoplites fared any better against the front of a Macedonian phalanx. The few times I can think of where there was success there was disruption in the ranks. I should add my standard appeal on this topic that there has never been an adequate account of what exactly occurred when these two types of phalanx clashed. We can extrapolate from the details we are given for the romans at Pydna that many hoplites had their shield's pinned. If hoplites fought past is was as individuals and not very effective.

On a side note, we do not know that Phillip faced the Athenians at Chaeronea with sarissaphoroi, these may have been hoplites as Hypaspists probably were.

then it seems likely that the longer spear is a sign of less armor and badly trained hoplites--badly trained as individuals, that is, lacking in the physique and the money to carry off the armor and the hand to hand fighting which (I think) characterized the Persian Wars and before.

We are told (Hdt. 7.211.2)" [2] When they (the Immortals) joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space. " One of the main advantages of the hoplite over the persian was his longer spear, so they must have already been over 6'-7' or 6'-7' backweighted to have a longer reach (estimating the Persian spear length from reliefs). Either way they would have suffered in your duelling. This is very much like the many discussions I have read on the utility of the lance in early modern warfare. Whether swords or lances are advocated, one thing that is clear is that there is a tremendous difference between troops who are new to the lance and those who grew up tent-pegging and boar-sticking. With more training you might find the 8' dory superior.

[Kineas]

I think it was the increasingly complex nature of warfare, rather than lack of trained Hoplites that saw these trends occur - I don't believe that Hoplite quality decreased.Rather, with the increase of full-time mercenaries, the growth of permanent epilektoi ( picked men), and just the increasing professionalism generally led to a decided improvement of the quality of Hoplite forces over the peasant-farmer militia of the 6th C BC.

and

Where I think you go wrong is that by the late 5th century Poleis are actively countering this. They are training elite units and hiring well trained mercenaries.

Are the two points I'm going to engage. I actually think that this relates to Dory length--otherwise I'd suggest that we are off to our usual three cornered argument and should start a new thread.

Overall--I think the trend of military history is that the creation of elite units usually indicates that the quality of the military overall is, in fact, declining. Again--not a popular view with reenactors and gamers--but in general, the "JSOC" mentality usually ends up minimizing the ability of the line units. And also as a dangerous generalization, I think that history, both Classical and modern, shows, that governments tend to reach for elite units to balance decay... especially totalitarian and oligarchical governments. I think that there's every reason to see Argos and Thebes as states that created picked forces for political reasons...

At some point int he 5th C., the main players (Athens, Sparta, Thebes) realized that a single field army was no longer enough. Athens, for instance, was capable--as early as the Persian Wars--of sending a substantial force to Plataea and STILL fielding a fleet and a second army at Mycale. Surely this was a startling thing to other Greeks--and a dangerous development? After Sparta, Athens seems to have had the second largest force at Plataea--or, perhaps, depending on how you read numbers, a larger citizen force. Yikes!

Again, assuming that Xenophon had his Spartan system correctly, Sparta and her "allies" could field two or even three armies simultaneously as early as 480 BC, with Spartiates left at home in case of disaster.

But...as army size grew drastically over the 5th century, AND the theaters of war expanded astronomically to include virtually the whole Mediterranean 9and I don't just mean the Pelop. Wars, but also those forgotten mid-century wars that saw Athens fighting Persia in Egypt while fighting Sparta and Thebes at home) there must have been some shocking developments in hoplite service. I only see hints in the literature--hints like the Spartan "Neodemodeis" or even, perhaps, the service of Socrates.

The hiring of mercenaries--even, perhaps, the widened use of cavalry--may (I stress, this is assertion, not any form of fact) have been pushed by the shortage of hoplites.

As to spear fencing--I'm going to back off that one. Instead, I'll make a dozen counter-balanced 10 foot dories and we'll do some "mid handle" vs "long handle" fighting in August--at least 6 vs 6--and maybe make a video. It won't be anythign that will satisfy all of us--but it might help.

[PMBardunias]

Overall--I think the trend of military history is that the creation of elite units usually indicates that the quality of the military overall is, in fact, declining.

I love when we argue these things down to a consensus. I agree completely that the rise of elite units reflects a percieved lack of training among non-elite units. I see the tie in to longer dorys in exactly the opposite manner as you though. Because I believe that the dory was used almost exclusively to jab overhand until one side broke, I think it takes much greater skill to use the longer and/or longer forward extending dory. I have practiced pointing long spears in this grip and it is damned difficult and demanding on the wrist. The new elite units and better trained mercs, and simply stronger from training, could make use of these longer spears while perhaps for lesser trained men the added length was more of a detriment for all the reasons you mentioned.

We don't really know (accepting it occurred at all) when the spears reach lengthened. Obviously it was pretty long by Thermopylae- substantially longer than the persian spears which were themselves taller than a man. So the whole tie in to training may go back a century earlier, when much of the panoply was in flux.

As to spear fencing--I'm going to back off that one. Instead, I'll make a dozen counter-balanced 10 foot dories and we'll do some "mid handle" vs "long handle" fighting in August--at least 6 vs 6--and maybe make a video. It won't be anythign that will satisfy all of us--but it might help.

Be careful, a 10' dory counterbalanced to a third from the rear is the equivalent of a 13 1/3 foot spear. Probably nearing too long to use one handed effectivly. I've heard anecdotally from reenactors and SCAers that 12' is the upper limit for one hand use, but of course that is from tall modern men mostly using it underhanded.

I'd stick with at most 9' balanced to 1/3 from the rear, which is a 12' spear or 8', equalling a 10 1/2' spear. You can just make the 12' spear and not worry about the weighting because the difference in handling between that and the 9' rear weighted dory will be minimal when compared to the difference between a 12' and an 8'-9' mid-balanced spear.

Although you cannot prove that the longer spear could not be used effectively, because of the question or training, you surely can prove that it could be used as well as outlining under what conditions favor it. I'd love to see video.

[PMBardunias]

Here are some very good images showing dorys which either appear to be tapered or are held in such a manner that their center of balance is towards the back. The first image is for contrast showing what appear to be a pair of dual use spears for a cavalryman. They seem to be double tapered from nearer the center point.

The last image shows a hoplite with his dory on his shoulder which would be uncomfortable unless the balance point was not too far from where it rests on the shoulder. Note he has a soft, not bronze, pilos in his hand and a real small sword right up under his arm like a pistol in a shoulder holster. I have been told this facilitated drawing the sword in a crowd since it is in the belly of the bowl.

[Kineas]

Note how many of those are double tapered.

Today we started experimenting with shorter and longer spears and different grips. I promise a reply when there's been enough action to warrant some thoughts.

[PMBardunias]

The important thing I think is where they taper from. In the first image the taper to each of the spear's butt is clearly up nearer to the middle of its length- not suprising since it should be a bit front heavy, or at least not backheavy, to be thrown effectively. In the other images th rear tapers only about the length of the sauroter up from the sauroter, so pretty near the back and probably not far from the balance point. Saddly these images have to wrapped grips. The fourth image actually looks like the artist drew tapering lines for the fore part of the spear and then, at about the level of the hoplites knee, drew tapering lines for a much shorter rear section. If anyone wants the papers these images came from just email me.

[richard robinson]

[

Today we started experimenting with shorter and longer spears and different grips. I promise a reply when there's been enough action to warrant some thoughts.[/quote]

Hope you had fun and continue to do so.
I had found that a 9 ft shaft was the longest that i could control comfortably- but with a slender spearhead and sauroter you could easily have a 10 foot overall length.

The continuuing saga above calls to mind an overarm dory dispute that i had with a friend. He came off beter because I lacked a sauroter on my dory at the time and he had the longer reach due to the counterweight on his. (he possibly was a better duellist admitably)
warm regards
richard robinson

[PMBardunias]

He came off beter because I lacked a sauroter on my dory at the time and he had the longer reach due to the counterweight on his.

Just a note: see the Sauroter revision thread. Christan and Giannis showed that the sauroter alone cannot have moved the balance point back to the 1/3 from the base described above. It probably weighed more than the small spear-heads, but not that much more unless lead was added (and the occurence of that is enigmatic). To move the balance point back with a real, hollow sauroter you also need a tapered shaft- tapered fore and aft from the point of balance desired. Without the sauroter to counter the point, I doubt that tapering alone could do it either.

[Paralus]

Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!

Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better. ) )

That last is, I'm afraid, an Australian perogative - pulling down the tall poppies that is.

Antipater had little to work with. If anything is plain it is the lack of experienced manpower that Alexander's depredations had visited upon him. The experienced troops were in Asia and, by the oubreak of hostilities in the Peloponnese, the sources count 14,000 Macedonian infantry reinforcements having followed him. Antipater, one can readily assume, made do with what he could raise. It might well be a safe bet to assume that a goodly amount of his infantry were mercenaries and hoplites at that. A situation not far removed from that he would face in the Lamian War.

The source tradition for Chaeronea is seriously deficient. Polyaenus' stratagems aside, the only "narrative" is that of Diodorus along with asides from Plutarch. Those asides shed a little light though. In the Pelopidas Plutarch describes Philip's reaction to the sight of the anihilated Sacred Band. Philip sees that "the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the long spears of his phalanx". In the Alexander he tells us that the prince had been "the first to break the ranks of the Sacred Band of the Thebans". MM Markle would explain this via the "cavalry sarissa".

Diodorus then relates the following (16.86.1-4):

The battle lines were drawn up at daybreak. On one wing the king posted his son Alexander, a mere youth in age but conspicuous for his valour and swiftness of action. He stationed alongside him the most important of his generals, while he himself, keeping his specially selected men by his side, had charge over the other wing. He also placed the individual units wherever the circumstances required. The Athenians divided up their line by nationality assigning one wing to the Boeotians while they themselves commanded the other. When battle was joined, there was a bitter struggle for a long time and many fell on both sides so long as the prospects for victory offered by the contest remained uncertain. But later, Alexander, who was eager to give his father proof of his own valour and allowed no other to pass him in determination, first opened up a gap in the enemy line with the support of the many brave men contending by his side. He broke through and by slaying many wore down the resistance of those ranged against him. After his comrades acheived the same result, the compact formation of the enemy line underwent a steady process of dissolution. When large numbers of corpses began to accumulate, Alexander and his men were first to force their way through those arrayed against them and put them to flight. Then the king himself, who, since he was bearing the brunt of the fighting, was unwilling to yield the credit for the victory even to Alexander, forcibly thrust back the troops opposite him and, by compelling them to turn tail, became the architect of the victory.

And that's about the extent of matters for the battle narrative. The more one reads it the more one is struck by the fact that this is hardly a cavalry charge being described. Indeed it reads exactly as one might expect an infantry battle to read. As well, there is no trace of the Macedonian cavalry in the battle narrative - unless one follows the received wisdom that Alexander led the Companion Cavalry in a charge at a gap in the line. The text hardly allows for such an interpretation though.

The Greeks had chosen their ground well: their phalanx occupied the width of the field in a strong defensive position which Philip, of necessity, had either to attack or dislodge them from. That field seems to have prevented the Macedonians from fielding their cavalry on the wings as is the assumed normal tactical practice. Hence the reconstructions (based on Polyaenus) that have Philip drawing the Athenians forward and to their left so as to leave the Boeotians stranded on the right and create a convenient gap for Alexander and his cavalry.

[PMBardunias]

Hence the reconstructions (based on Polyaenus) that have Philip drawing the Athenians forward and to their left so as to leave the Boeotians stranded on the right and create a convenient gap for Alexander and his cavalry.

Rather than an intentional feigned withdrawel, I have read the notion that he was initially replulsed by the Athenians in their strong position, then rallied his forces for a counter-attack when the Athenians followed. Perhaps something akin the the Macedonian actions at Sellasia. You can see why Phillip's boosters might like to exlain this through a tactic that was attributed only to Spartans- and unlikely even with them on a mass scale.

What is your opinion, did Phillip lead Sarissaphoroi or hoplites?

[Paralus]

Perhaps something akin the the Macedonian actions at Sellasia. You can see why Phillip's boosters might like to exlain this through a tactic that was attributed only to Spartans- and unlikely even with them on a mass scale.

What is your opinion, did Phillip lead Sarissaphoroi or hoplites?

Can't you ask simple questions?

In large part I tend to follow Paul Mac's and your scepticism (and Christian's) with respect to a planned withdrawal. The fullest work on the battle has been done by Hammond. His reconstruction is based on a detailed walk of what he has identified as the battlefield based on the pointers in the surviving literary sources and the archaeology of the fields below the ancient Chaeronea acropolis. His diagram (Philip of Macedon, Duckworth, 1994 p.152) seems to be cogent strategically and practically for the Greeks. He has the right of the Greek line anchored by the Sacred Band next to marshes on the edge of the Cephisus. The Athenians anchor the other along the rising spur above the Heamon, the “valley” of which is occupied by allied light armed.

These dispositions are sensible. They put the Greeks in a strong defensive position where they have no need of their weaker cavalry to defend vulnerable flanks. The sense of these dispositions is likely indicated by the fact that Philip, having made a lightening rush through the Gravia Pass with advance columns securing the entry points into the plain of Boeotia, apparently camped and reconnoitred the situation (hence “Alexander’s oak” where he’d pitched his tent).

The Athenians were unable to be flanked owing the spur and presented difficult ground for the Macedonian infantry (Haemon Creek) to cross. If the allies did not move then Philip had to dislodge them. It is tempting to suggest that Philip’s picked men (likely the hypaspists or some of them) were hoplite armed and hence the fierce battle. Given the ground, they might just as well have been sarisa armed and we have Issos lite. Polyaenus (4.2.2), possibly echoing Philip’s propaganda, likely preserves some reality:

[Philip] ordered his phalanx to keep close and firm, and to retreat slowly, covering themselves with their shields from the attacks of the enemy. As soon as he had by the manoeuvre drawn them from their advantageous ground, and gained an eminence, he halted; and encouraging his troops to a vigorous attack...

If the Athenians were on advantageous ground and if the Macedonian phalanx was in some difficulty in keeping good formation across the creek, it is not inconceivable that Philip’s “withdrawal” was not necessarily one of choice. This might well be a forced and grudging giving of ground by a phalanx closed up behind shields and sarisae. Sellasia indeed.

In Illyria, when defeating Bardylliss, Philip again is seen leading the “picked men” on the right. These, near certainly, are the troops he had been arming and training in the new tactics and weapons – the sarisa. It is similar here.

The evidence is far too tenuous to definitively assert just how the infantry on Philip’s right were armed. What is clear is that the Sacred Band was met and felled by sarisa armed troops. One might think that, given the reputation of this corps, select Macedonian infantry might well have been opposed to them as well - a splitting of the hypaspist corps? Markle would have those sarisae in the hands of Alexander and the Comapanion Cavalry. I believe it is clear – if anything is – that they were in the hands of Philip’s phalanx. Where then Alexander?

Intriguing is the fact there is no description – a clear description as in other battles – of the Macedonian cavalry in action. They likely pursued the Athenians up the Haemon valley and killed not a few but there is nothing in the battle description reminiscent of Issos or Gaugamela. The rendering of such in this battle by modern historians smacks of anticipation of the Asian anabasis.