Those coupling-sleeves again...

[Crispianus]

From the above thread: https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showthread.php?tid=25456&pid=338630#pid338630

The connector is 10cm or ~4 inches, not 7...

[url=https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showthread.php?tid=25456&pid=338630#pid338630][/url]

I suspect the error on the length may have have come about as result of a mistake in, or misinterpretaion of the record. To me the sleeve looks closer to 11cm, this could be easily mistaken for 17.
I've come across similar things before, unrelated eg: material thickness 0.005m as 5cm, at the time I had to look in the original report to find this suspected error, the reason why its always a good idea not necesarily to take measurements at face value and double check where possible.
But in any case the length of 17cm is clearly not correct.

[Anatol Wyss]

Baffled. Is this the only existing evidence of the sleeve? How was it found and with what else? Pictures of the original? Could the tube have been a part of something else that's been broken? Some kind of tool?

[Crispianus]

Baffled. Is this the only existing evidence of the sleeve? How was it found and with what else? Pictures of the original? Could the tube have been a part of something else that's been broken? Some kind of tool?

According to Giannis its a resin cast of the original.
Anyway it occured to me that it could be a grip, a little long perhaps but not by much.... it would suit me not too large or too small.

[Condottiero Magno]

Baffled. Is this the only existing evidence of the sleeve? How was it found and with what else? Pictures of the original? Could the tube have been a part of something else that's been broken? Some kind of tool?

AFAIK, this is the only sleeve in existence.

Hetairoi's reconstruction with the coupling sleeve:The Sarissa experiment - an experience report about the reconstruction of the Macedonian lance. The problem is that the sleeve, doesn't look like the resin cast and the pike's drooping is exacerbated by not being properly tapered and formed from two halves. Christopher Matthew (An Invincible Beast: Understanding the Hellenistic Pike Phalanx in Action) has a whole chapter about the sarissa, but he's too quick to promote the logistical and tactical benefits of a coupling sleeve, when no one else did so in later centuries. The Successor States relied on pikemen, more so than Alexander, and with pikes of greater length, yet no surviving coupling sleeves. Tapering a haft of sufficient length requires specialized tools and training, not something an average footsoldier would need to know, aside from basic maintenance. There are records of Medieval archers having spare bows and an army setting out would have extra pikes in the baggage train.

---

According to Giannis its a resin cast of the original.
Anyway it occured to me that it could be a grip, a little long perhaps but not by much.... it would suit me not too large or too small.

Grips are made of wire or leather and wound around a haft, not a metal tube.

[Crispianus]

---

According to Giannis its a resin cast of the original.
Anyway it occured to me that it could be a grip, a little long perhaps but not by much.... it would suit me not too large or too small.

Grips are made of wire or leather and wound around a haft, not a metal tube.

Obviously its not a Sarrisa grip you'd simply be creating the same problem somewhere else, I was thinking in particular of a sword grip from Höganäs of Hallstatt D date, granted this is earlier, it was specifically noted by the author not because its a tube or even thats its a sword grip, but because it has a brazed seam rather then welded.  Otherwise its a hollow tube that sways out at the ends (also in the middle) in a similar fashion to the "coupling sleeve".

Of course it could be completely unrelated....

from "Notes on Prehistoric and Early iron in the Old world" Cochlan 1977.

[Sean Manning]

Apart from being worrying if such details are presented as facts without the scientific backing, wouldn't it just make allot of sense, practically and logistical wise?

When we ask each other "what would have been practical?" then compare archaeological evidence, we almost often find that our own ideas are very different and work worse.  Its arrogant folly to assume that the first idea we come up with is the best possible approach.  Much better is to look at how people made and used the objects we are studying, or similar ones, before power tools and measuring tapes.

  I don't have the Osprey by Ryan Jones or Christopher Matthew's book on phalangites, but the problems with Andronicos' two-part sarissa joined by a tube include:
- the two-part pike can fall apart (the Hetairoi say they have almost had serious injuries from falling pike shafts) or be torn apart when it hits something or a nasty person grabs the shaft and pulls
- you can't trail the pike (drop the butt on the ground and march with it dragging behind you) to reduce the weight on your shoulder
- extant pikes are barrel-shaped, thickest in the middle and thinnest at the point, so half a pike is not a good short spear, its a 'spear-shaped object.'  If you start with a tree trunk, some wedges, and an adze a tapered shaft is just as easy to make as a cylindrical shaft.  People who have handled original pikes describe how light and nimble they are thanks to the tapering and the small heads.
- the head he associated with the tube is big, wide, and heavy, but ancient and modern sources say that pike heads should be small, narrow, and light

[Paralus]

Just received my copy of Ancient Warfare XIII.1 and what do I see in the background? Epirote phalangites wielding sarrisae with coupling-sleeves...  Matthew's An Invincible Beast had 'em, but I could ignore the specific chapter, as it's a decent work, while Dahm's Macedonian Phalangite vs Persian Warrior: Alexander confronts the Achaemenids, 334–331 BC  lazily regurgitated it, like a pair of Hawkwood's dismounted men-at-arms wielding a single spear. Why is the coupling sleeve still perpetuated, despite no other examples and no mention of it in accounts?

I guess they just cannot imagine how else you could make such a long pike.... so it would seem logical, even if the evidence doesn't fit the logic.

Thought it worthwhile to check [url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183503/page/n261]

"The height of the male tree is at most 12 cubits, the length of the longest macedonian spear"

I have no idea if this is true, that the longest spear is 12 cubits or about 18ft but at least its contemporary, and if so would suggest you could make the Sarissa from one piece with no need for any join.

Theophrastus means only that the longest sarissa of his day was the same length as the height of the male cornelwood tree. It does not mean it was made of such wood.

On the "coupling" sleeve, this is a nonsense. As has been remarked, such simply introduces a major flaw into the weapon. Firstly, the supposed sleeve is far too short for such a task. Secondly, the only discovered specimen has no nail holes for securing said sleeve. There is no way such a two piece sarissa would stay corporate with such a "connector" during battle.

On the cover of AW X111.2, I've never taken the prodromoi as infantry sarissa armed as Markle would have it. An eighteen foot pike would be an extremely unwieldy weapon to handle from horseback - especially given the lack of stirrups. The Macedonian cavalry spear was the xyston at, perhaps, twelve feet long (Kinch tomb, Alexander Mosaic). While Markle demonstrated an infantry sarissa could be carried by a rider, he did not demonstrate it could be handled in close cavalry combat.

It's as well to remember that the Macedonians used "sarisa" to refer to spears; the word did not strictly mean the long infantry pike. To a Greek, a cavalryman carrying an eleven or twelve foot xyston might well be carrying what appears to be the classic sarissa. In such a view, cavalry called "sarissaphoroi" need not be a technical term denoting someone wielding and infantry sarissa on horseback. We might note that Arrian happily refers to the Macedonian phalangites as "hoplites" in the early part of his work. These histories were not technical manuals.

[Michael Kerr]

Saw this on Hixenbaugh Ancient Art page. If it is a coupling sleeve it is a lot longer than the sleeves depicted on artists' impressions. 

   

https://www.hixenbaugh.net/gallery/detai...AWqOQc73bo
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Paralus]

Saw this on Hixenbaugh Ancient Art page. If it is a coupling sleeve it is a lot longer than the sleeves depicted on artists' impressions. 



https://www.hixenbaugh.net/gallery/detai...AWqOQc73bo
Regards
Michael Kerr

And it is a lot longer than the only extant so-called coupler which, if memory serves, was about six inches. I would also ask just which ancient sources describe the sarissa as being constructed of two shafts?

[Condottiero Magno]

Saw this on Hixenbaugh Ancient Art page. If it is a coupling sleeve it is a lot longer than the sleeves depicted on artists' impressions. 



https://www.hixenbaugh.net/gallery/detai...AWqOQc73bo
Regards
Michael Kerr

And it is a lot linger than the only extant so-called coupler which, if memory serves, was about six inches. I would also ask just which ancient sources describe the sarissa as being constructed of two shafts?

I saw this auction listing ages ago, but wasn't sure of its provenance...

Based on the decorative segmentation, the "tube" attached to the spearhead and functioned as a langet, though Matthew discounts this in his book.

How many sarissa sauroters of this specific design have been found? I'm curious as miniature designers have sculpted all sarissophoroi wielding pikes with this type of butt-spike.
 

[Dave G]

Ive been aware of this issue for quite a while but never really thought it worth the effort of getting involved.
That this joining tube is a thing for that purpose is probably correct, the big 'however' is that I dont believe in any credible way that it was used to join two (equal) halfs of a spear together, so that must just raise the question of where on a shaft it could be placed, my best guess at the moment is that its a buttplate sleeve of some kind or function that was possibly meant to secure some other decorative-probably wooden therefore perishable, butt carving.
Everyone seems to be getting hung up on the joinng function and not looking for where it could feasibly be used without compromising the integrity of the weapon its attached to. I have no proof of this of course, my secondary guess would be that it actually has nothing to do with the spear at all, and some sort of staff or banner or something else was just bundled in the same stack and has long since disintigrated.

[Crispianus]

"The height of the male tree is at most 12 cubits, the length of the longest macedonian spear"

Theophrastus means only that the longest sarissa of his day was the same length as the height of the male cornelwood tree. It does not mean it was made of such wood.

Quite so and the reason why I dont say that directly... however it is implied, to my mind it would require some proof ie someone actually makes a one piece pike from cornel wood... or finding a complete example.

In any case this might interest, "Sarissa" by Manolis Andronicos, I dont know if this is the original article thats lead to all this speculation or not, but its interesting reading.... you can obtain a copy by clicking on the "pdf" button next to the article window.

Context for the find is everything:
Its an old graveyard going back hundreds of years with some graves/tumuli being reused or added too.
The actual chamber was very small 1.5 x 2m.
It was a cremation burial, the weapons appear to have been cremated or at least had the shafts removed as the nails were missing.
It had been robbed from the top and disturbed.
The weapon components were scattered, its entirely possible that something not present originally or not intended could have entered the tomb when it was robbed.
Its possible the chamber had been used more then once since it has a step at the top suggesting some other form of lid, the final covering did not use this step.

From the article translated via google:

"D (Fig. 8). Iron socket. Narrower in the middle, it flares out at both
ends, thus having a slightly concave profile. It is of circular section
inside, and polygonal outside (fourteen sides). Both sides of the
plate have not been perfectly adjusted, so that it remains between them,
up and down, a slit, which is wider over 3/4 of the length.
Length: 0.17 m.
Diam a: 0.028 m, b: 0.032 m.
Thickness of the wall a: 0.002 / 0.003 m, B: 0.003 / 0.005 m"

   

The photo scale of 1/3 and the "sleeve" measurements of 3.2cm do not coincide, being around 50% larger when compared with the large spearhead socket width of 3.6cm which is also at 1/3 scale, in other words the sleeve photo should be reduced by 1/3.
Its clear that the length measurement is wrong and should be no more then @11cm.

The "Sleeve" is made from a piece of iron plate that has been formed into a tube, rather like the grip (Högonas sword) I previously mentioned from an earlier era, except that the join appears to be open, not brazed (or welded) shut, although this may have been destroyed during cremation.

[Paralus]

The photo scale of 1/3 and the "sleeve" measurements of 3.2cm do not coincide, being around 50% larger when compared with the large spearhead socket width of 3.6cm which is also at 1/3 scale, in other words the sleeve photo should be reduced by 1/3.
Its clear that the length measurement is wrong and should be no more then @11cm.

The "Sleeve" is made from a piece of iron plate that has been formed into a tube, rather like the grip (Högonas sword) I previously mentioned from an earlier era, except that the join appears to be open, not brazed (or welded) shut, although this may have been destroyed during cremation.

Andronicos actually gives the length of the supposed coupler at 0.17m or 17cm = 6.7". Again, I cannot for the life of me see that as a coupling device.

[Crispianus]

The photo scale of 1/3 and the "sleeve" measurements of 3.2cm do not coincide, being around 50% larger when compared with the large spearhead socket width of 3.6cm which is also at 1/3 scale, in other words the sleeve photo should be reduced by 1/3.
Its clear that the length measurement is wrong and should be no more then @11cm.

The "Sleeve" is made from a piece of iron plate that has been formed into a tube, rather like the grip (Högonas sword) I previously mentioned from an earlier era, except that the join appears to be open, not brazed (or welded) shut, although this may have been destroyed during cremation.

Andronicos actually gives the length of the supposed coupler at 0.17m or 17cm = 6.7". Again, I cannot for the life of me see that as a coupling device.

The size is given as 17cm length x 2.8-3.2cm width,  17 cm is clearly an error, the problem is that this seems to have been accepted by every author since including its identification as a coupling sleeve, for which there is no real evidence.

Heres a sketch, the first sleeve is 17x3.2cm as per measurements from "Sarissa" Andronicus, the second is 11x3.2cm based on the photo of the same article and the photo of the cast copy with ruler posted by Giannis K. Hoplite, which one most looks like the original in proportions:

   

The earlier Högonäs sword Grip of Tubular iron which is somewhat similar:

   

Noted for its early use of brazing the joint on the grip which was made from an iron plate as well.
Source: "Notes on Prehistoric and Early Iron in the Old World" By H.H.Coghlan.(Pitt Rivers Museum) 2nd edition 1977.
Originally from: "Metallteknik under Förhistorisk Tid", A.E.Oldenburg 1942-3

[Condottiero Magno]

Oh dear...

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=512747024189403&set=a.502366235227482

At least it's not as bad as the errors that plagued Medieval Warfare magazine's illustrations.