Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:49:20.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Length of the Sarissa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Christopher Matthew
Christopher Matthew*
Affiliation:
Australian Catholic University, Strathfield Campus, NSW, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an age when size really did matter, the length of the long pike (sarissa) employed by armies of the Hellenistic Age (c. 350-168 BC) was consistently altered by successive armies trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. These alterations are well attested in the ancient sources — albeit in an ancient Greek unit of measure. But how big were these pikes in terms of modern units of measure? This has been a topic of scholarly debate for some time. This article engages with these debates, and the evidence and theories that these arguments are based upon. A critical review of this evidence not only allows the changing length of the sarissa to be calculated in a modern unit of measure, but also examines descriptions in the ancient sources that suggest the forerunner to the Hellenistic pike phalanx was created a generation before the rise of Macedon as a military power in the mid fourth century BC. This, in turn, allows for the configuration of one of the weapons that changed the face of warfare in the ancient world to be much better understood.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 46 , 2012 , pp. 79 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ascl. Tact. 5.1: .

2 Ael. Tact. Tact. 12: . In chapter 1 of his work on tactics, Aelian details many of the sources that he has used as the basis for his research when putting his work together. The sources cited by Aelian include specific works on tactics by Stratocles, Frontinus, Aeneas, Cyneas the Thessalian, Pyrrhus the Epirote and his son Alexander, Clearchus, Pausanias, Evangeleus, Polybius, Eupolemus, Iphicrates, Poseidonius and Brion. Many of these works have not survived and are only briefly mentioned in the works of other writers like Aelian. One interesting omission from the list of sources provided by Aelian is the Tactica of Asclepiodotus. This poses two possibilities. Either a) Aelian borrowed heavily from the earlier work of Asclepiodotus, with which it shares numerous similarities, but did not want to draw attention to the fact that he had done so or b), as it has been theorised, Asclepiodotus had simply released a work on tactics written by Poseidonius, of whom he was a pupil and whom Aelian does list as a source, under his own name. The question of the true authorship of Asclepiodotus' work, and therefore Aelian's potential use of it as a source, will probably never be satisfactorily addressed.

3 Devine, A.M., ‘The Short Sarissa: Tactical Reality or Scribal Error?’, AHB 8:4 (1994) 132Google Scholar.

4 Theoph. Caus. pl. 3.12; obviously the height of each Cornellian cherry tree would vary so Theophrastus must only be making a generalisation. However, such a generalisation would not work unless the tree was compared to something of a standard length — such as a weapon. Indeed, the effectiveness of ancient combat using men in a massed formation like the Hellenistic phalanx relied on weapons that were relatively standardised across all members of a unit or army, as this would influence how those troops could be employed and which tactics and strategies could be used in battle (see following). It is thus not surprising that we find numerous references to both weapons and armour of specific sizes and shapes, for the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans, in the works of the ancient military writers and historians.

5 Polyaenus, Strat. 2.29.2; Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia Ш 336-167 BC (Oxford 1988) 262Google Scholar, date this battle to 274 BC.

6 Polyb. 18.29.2: .

7 Ael. Tact. Tact 14.

8 Sekunda, N., The Army of Alexander the Great (Oxford 1999) 27Google Scholar.

9 Heckel, W. and Jones, R., Macedonian Warrior: Alexander's Elite Infantryman (Oxford 2006) 13Google Scholar.

10 Markle, M.M., ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armour’, AJA 81:3 (1977) 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Everson, T., Warfare in Ancient Greece (Stroud 2004) 175Google Scholar.

12 Snodgrass, A.M., Arms and Armour of the Greeks (London 1999) 119Google Scholar.

13 Ael. Tact. Tact, praef.; the dedication to Hadrian appears in Robertello's 1552 edition and Arcerius' 1613 edition of Aelian's work. The dedication is then carried into Bingham's 1616 edition and Augustus’ 1814 edition. The Köchly and Riistow 1885 edition has an alternate version of the text where the work is dedicated to Trajan (αὐτόκρατορ Καῖσαρ υἱὲ θεοῦ Τραϊανὲ σεβαστέ). However, in his preface, Aelian states that the work was initially begun under Trajan (whom he calls Nerva) but it was then completed for Hadrian.

14 Hdt. 1.60; Anth. Pal. 12.50.

15 Hdt. 2.149: . See also Richardson, W.F., Numbering and Measuring in the Classical World (Bristol 2004) 29–32Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. 29-32.

17 Dekoulakou-Sideris, I., ‘A Metrological Relief from Salamis’, AJA 94:3 (1990) 445-51. The relief is now in the Piraeus Museum (#5352)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 That is: 2.0 cm × 4 = 8 cm per ‘palm’. 4 × 8 cm = 32 cm per ‘foot’, and 6 × 8 cm = 48 cm per ‘cubit’.

19 Dekoulakou-Sideris, Metrological Relief (n. 17) 449.

20 For the Olympic/Peloponnesian foot, see Broneer, O., Isthmia I (Princeton 1971) 175–80Google Scholar.

21 Connolly, in his examination of the functionality of the sarissa, bases his replica weapons on an Attic cubit of 48.7 cm. See Connolly, P., ‘Experiments with the Sarissa – The Macedonian Pike and Cavalry lance – A Functional View’, JUMES 11 (2000) 106-7Google Scholar.

22 Broneer, , Isthmia (n. 20) 175-80Google Scholar.

23 Michaelis, A., ‘The Metre-logical Relief at Oxford’, JHS 4 (1883) 560CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘The Basis of Greek Temple Design in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy’, Atti VII Congresso Internazionale di Arehologia Classica I (Rome 1961) 358-61Google Scholar.

25 IG I3 1453 (M&L 45) clause 12.

26 See Fine, J.V.A., The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History (Cambridge 1983) 367Google Scholar; Mattingly, H.B., ’The Athenian Coinage Decree’, Historia 10 (1961) 148-88Google Scholar; id., ‘Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire’, Historia 41 (1992) 129-138; id., ‘New Light on the Athenian Standards Decree’, Kliolb (1993) 99-102.

27 Hultsch, F., Griechische und Römische Metrologie, 2nd edn (Berlin 1882) 30-4, 697Google Scholar; Dörpfeld, W., ‘Beiträge zur antiken Metrologie 1: Das solonisch-attische System’, Ath. Mitt. VII (1882) 277Google Scholar. See also Lammert, F., ‘Sarisse’, RE Second Series IA (Stuttgart 1920) col. 2516Google Scholar; Marsden, E.W., Greek and Roman Artillery - Technical Treatises (Oxford 1969) ixGoogle Scholar.

28 Tarn, W.W., Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge 1930) 15Google Scholar; id. Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1948) 169-71.

29 Arr. Anab. 5.4.4.

30 An. Anab. 5.19.1.

31 Diod. Sic. 17.88.4; Plut, . Alex. 40Google Scholar. Diodorus (17.91.7) also refers to another Indian king, Sopeithes, whose height he says was ‘exceeding (ὑπεράγων) four cubits’.

32 Tarn, , Alexander (n. 28) 170Google Scholar. This was a view shared by Manti, P., ‘The Sarissa of the Macedonian Infantry’, Anc W 33:2 (1992) 40Google Scholar.

33 Tarn, , Hellenistic (n. 28) 15Google Scholar.

34 Mixter, J.R., ‘The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great’, Anc W 23:2 (1992) 22Google Scholar.

35 Manti, , Sarissa (n. 32) 39–41Google Scholar. He claims (40) that part of the proof of the existence of the 33 cm cubit is that the large head, supposedly from a sarissa, found by Andronicos at Vergina, measures exactly 1½ Macedonian cubits. However, 51 cm (the size of the head) is not 1.5 times a small ‘Macedonian’ cubit of 33 cm, nor does it conform with a system incorporating a larger cubit of 45 cm (unless it is assumed that the head measures 1 cubit and 2 daktyloi), so the size of the head found by Andronicos cannot be used to definitively support either position in the debate over the size of the cubit. Manti also says that the size of the tube found by Andronicos (17 cm), supposedly a connecting tube for two halves of the lengthy sarissa, is equal to ½ a bematist's cubit and that the size of the butt-spike which was found (44.5 cm) equals 1⅓ Macedonian cubits. None of these calculations works out correctly in any system of measurements. For other views on this debate, see Markle, Macedonian Sarissa (n. 10) 323; Dickinson, R.E., ‘Length Isn't Everything – Use of the Macedonian Sarissa in the Time of Alexander the Great’, JBT 3:3 (2000) 51-2Google Scholar; Fox, R. Lane, Alexander the Great (London 1973)511Google Scholar.

36 Manti, , Sarissa (n. 32) 41-2Google Scholar.

37 Markle, , Macedonian Sarissa (n. 10) 323Google Scholar; Fox, Lane, Alexander (n. 35) 511Google Scholar; Dickinson, , Macedonian Sarissa (n. 35) 51–62Google Scholar.

38 Markle, , Macedonian Sarissa (n. 10) 323Google Scholar; Fox, Lane, Alexander (n. 35) 511Google Scholar.

39 Ath. 10.442b; Plin, . HN 6.61–62Google Scholar.

40 See Plin, . HN 6.61–62Google Scholar; Strabo 11.8.9. A good tabulated summary of these recorded measurements can be found in Engels, D.W., Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley 1978) 157Google Scholar.

41 Engels, , Logistics (n.40) 158Google Scholar; Heron, , Dioptra 34Google Scholar.

42 Strabo 11.8.9.

43 In this system 1 daktylos = 1.375 cm, 1 palm = 5.5 cm, 1 foot = 22 cm, a cubit = 33 cm, and a stade (600 feet) = 13,200 cm or 132m.

44 In this system 1 daktylos = 1.875 cm, 1 palm = 1.5 cm, 1 foot = 30 cm, a cubit = 45 cm, and a stade (600 feet) = 18,000 cm or 180m.

45 In this system 1 daktylos= 2.0 cm, 1 palm= 8.0 cm, 1 foot= 32 cm, a cubit= 48 cm, and a stade (600 feet) = 19,200 cm or 192m.

46 The largest margin of error is Strabo's calculation of the distance from Prophthasia (Juwain) to Arachoti Polis (Kelat-i-Ghilzai) which he gives as 4,120 stades or 791 km in the larger ‘late-Attic’ system. The actual distance is 845km – a difference of around 9%.

47 Tarn, , Alexander (n. 28) 16Google Scholar.

48 Manti, , Sarissa (n.32) 40Google Scholar.

49 Hdt. 1.68.

50 Hdt. 6.117.

51 Plut, . Thes. 36Google Scholar.

52 Tarn, , Alexander (n. 28) 170Google Scholar.

53 Email correspondence with J. Stroszeck of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 1-4 March 2008; see also Stroszeck, J., ‘Lakonisch-rotfigurige Keramik aus den Lakedaimoniergräbern am Kerameikos von Athen’, AA 2 (2006) 101–20Google Scholar; van Wees, H., Greek Warfare - Myths and Realities (London 2004) 146-7Google Scholar; Salazar, C.F., The Treatment of War Wounds in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Leiden 2000) 233-4Google Scholar; Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War – Part IV (Berkeley 1985) 133-4Google Scholar; L. van Hook, , ‘On the Lacedaemonians Buried in the Kerameikos’, >AJA 36:3 (Jul-Sep 1932) 290-2Google Scholar.

54 By contrast, Vegetius (Mil. 1.5) states that both Roman cavalrymen and front line legionaries of the fourth century AD should be between 172 cm and 177 cm in height. This further suggests that an average height of around 170 cm for the Greeks of the earlier Classical period is not implausible.

55 Ascl. Tact. 5.1.

56 Ael. Tact. Tact. 12.

57 Liampi, K., Der makedonische Schild (Bonn 1998) 52–5, pl. 1Google Scholar.

58 Liampi, , Schild (n.57) 53Google Scholar; id., ‘Der makedonische Schild als propagandistiches Mittel’, Meletemata 10 (1990) 157-71. See also Adam-Veleni, P., ‘Χάλκινη ασπίδα από τή Βεγόρα τής Φλωρίνας, Ancient Macedonia (1993) 17–28Google Scholar.

59 Hammond, , ‘A Macedonian Shield and Macedonian Measures’, ABSA 91 (1996) 365Google Scholar.

60 Ibid. 365; Hammond also points out (365 n. 6) that the military fortifications at Dion and Thessaloniki, and the heroön at Yiannitsa, were all built using the 48 cm cubit standard. This shows that the Macedonians were using a system of measurements incorporating a cubit much larger than most previous scholars have suggested.

61 Liampi, , Schild (n. 57) 59–61, pl. 5Google Scholar. A metrological relief now in the Museum of Lepcis Magna contains a representation of a so called ‘Ptolemaic cubit’ which measures 52.5 cm. Such a system of measures would incorporate a ‘foot’ of 45cm. However, it is clear from the shield mould that the Ptolemies, at least at the time when the mould was in use, were either not using this larger standard (or else the mould would have to be 2 ‘Ptolemaic feet’ or 90 cm in diameter) or that they were making shields with a diameter less than the 2 ‘feet’ detailed by Asclepiodotus.

62 See Peltz, U., ‘Der Makedonische Schild aus Pergamon der Antikensammlung Berlin’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, Bd 43 (2001) 331-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Everson, , Warfare (n. 11) 178Google Scholar.

64 E.g. see Heckel, and Jones, , Macedonian Warrior (n. 9) 14Google Scholar; Connolly, , Greece and Rome at War (London 1998) 79Google Scholar; English, S., The Army of Alexander the Great (Barnsley 2009) 24Google Scholar.

65 That is, 65 cm / 32 daktyloi = 2.03 cm per daktylos.

66 If the average diameter of the phalangite shield was greater than 64 cm, this would mean that the units of measure used to represent its size were even larger than the 32 cm foot.

67 Ascl. Tact. 4.1 on close-order: ; intermediate-order: .

68 Ael. Tact. Tact. 14; Polyb. 18.29.2; Arr. Tact. 11.3.

69 For how the hoplite armies of the Classical age conformed to an interval of 45-50cm when deployed in close-order, see Matthew, C.A., ‘When Push Comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat?’, Historia 58.4 (2009) 406-7Google Scholar. Numerous ancient writers state that the pikes held by the front ranks of the Hellenistic phalanx projected between the files and beyond the front of the line (see Arr. Tact. 12; Polybius 18.29.2; Ael. Tact. Tact. 14; Asel. Tact. 5.1). The positioning of these weapons between the files make it impossible for phalangites to stand in the 48 cm interval of the close-order formation and create a line with ‘interlocked shields’ (or ‘with shields brought together’ as the term synaspismos can be translated) while keeping the shield in a protective position across the front of the body and the weapons poised for combat. It appears that phalangites adopted a close-order only to undertake such manoeuvres as ‘wheeling’ which required their pikes to be carried vertically (see Ael. Tact. Tact. 31). Ignoring this statement by Aelian, some scholars have come up with different theories and models for how a file of phalangites may have stood in order to fit into a close-order interval and still engage in combat; with the men standing almost side-on (e.g. see Warry, J., Warfare in the Classical World [Norman 1980] 72-3Google Scholar; Connolly, , Greece and Rome [n.21] 109Google Scholar). Such models seem incorrect as they do not conform with the terminology (in such models the shields of the phalangites are neither ‘interlocked’ nor are they ‘brought together’), the shield is removed from its protective position across the front of the body, and/or the phalangite is contorted into a position which would make the effective use of his weapon all but impossible. This suggests that the close-order formation was only used by troops armed as Classical hoplites to create a close-order ‘shield wall’ or by phalangites who were holding their pikes vertically while undertaking particular drill movements, as Aelian states.

70 Arr. Tact. 12.7: .

71 Nep. Iphicr. 1.3-4.

72 Diod. Sic. 15.44.1-4; the word used by Diodorus to describe the size of the new weapon is ἡμιολίῳ meaning ‘one and a half’, ‘half as much’, or, in agreement with Nepos, ‘as large again’ (i.e. doubled).

73 Matthew, , Othismos (n. 69) 400Google Scholar.

74 Markle, , Macedonian Sarissa (n. 10) 323Google Scholar.

75 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2. The word ‘peltast’ has, more often than not, been used interchangeably with the terms ‘skirmisher’ or ‘light infantry’ by numerous scholars over the years. However, Aelian clearly distinguishes between the light infantry/skirmisher (the psiloi), the hoplite armed in the Classical manner, and the peltast - by which he is referring to the Iphicratean peltast or the forerunner to the Hellenistic phalangite.

76 Ascl. Tact. 5.1; Theoph. Caus.pl. 3.12; Arr. Tact. 12.7.

77 Excerpta Polyaeni 18.8.

78 See Arr. Tact. 12.3; Ael. Tact. Tact. 13.3; Polyb. 18.29.2; Asel. Tact. 5.1.

79 Plut, . Aem. 19Google Scholar.

80 Hammond, , Macedonian Shield (n. 59) 365-7Google Scholar.

81 Such a formation was tested using volunteers armed with staves by Delbrück, (Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte I [Berlin 1900] 404)Google Scholar who seems to have had no trouble using it. However, he does not elaborate on whether he tested how the formation would work if members in the front ranks started to fall as is detailed above.