Thread by @BretDevereaux

Hey this is a great question about what we're able to know about the sarisa, the Macedonian pike - the key weapon of the infantry under Alexander the Great but also the Hellenistic successors states (the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Antigonids, etc).

So let's talk about it! 1/lots

https://twitter.com/ChaparralThe/status/1429299358751625223

Let's start with the archaeology. Reconstructing the sarisa really hinges on a handful of artifacts from a single site - in particular just six damaged metal objects from the Macedonian royal tombs at Aigai.

Here they are (image from Connolly (2000):
2/xx

These were recovered and published by a Greek archaeologist, M. Andronicos; they were recovered outside the tomb, perhaps looted and then discarded; so probably not in their original location of deposition which leaves their relationships to each other unclear. 3/xx

Let's go ahead and number them for ease here, left-to-right:
1) the big, not sharp oval object
2) the small spear-head
3) the flanged butt
4) the metal tube
5) larger spearhead
6) larger spearhead. 4/x

Andronicos argued in the initial find (before (5) and (6) were recovered) that (1), (3) and (4) must be part of a single weapon - the sarisa - which up until that point we had no archaeological evidence of (but literary and representational evidence existed). 5/xx

The first reconstruction was done by a fellow named M.M. Markle who followed Andronicos' identifications and reconstructed what he termed a 'cavalry sarisa' - he then interpreted (5) and (6) as part of an 'infantry' sarisa. 6/xx

So...spoilers but Markle and Andronicos are probably wrong about basically everything here, but a lot of visual reconstructions of the sarisa still follow their identifications, esp. the role of the iron tube. 7/xx

But of course we're missing a big part of the sarisa - the wooden haft! That isn't ever likely to survive archaeologically, but good news: our ancient sources tell us how long it is.

Bad news: they use confusing units and don't agree. 8/xx

In rough chronological order, Theophratus (371-287) says it was 12 cubits; Polybius (c. 200-118) says 14 cubits. Asclepiodotus (1st cent BCE) says 10 cubits at the shortest, but he's writing after the weapon was no longer really used. Polyaenus (2nd cent CE) says 16 cubits

9/xx

And Leo and Aelian copy Polybius' homework and use his number. We can ignore them.

So between 10 and 16 cubits. Problem: how big is a cubit? 10/xx

So the cubit is a length measurement derived from the human body - it is the length of a forearm. But different Greek states formalized that measure differently, leading to a range of cubit lengths. A cubit is *about* 18 inches. -ish. 11/xx

But now we start to get into some frankly silly bits of scholarship. Since at least the 1930s (with W.W. Tarn) scholars read those long lengths, converted to their own units and concluded that something must be wrong as it was so long, around 19-21 feet. 12/xx

Mind you, they didn't reconstruct the things nor did they compare to early modern pikes (if they had done the latter, they'd have found the length not unreasonable). Tarn just concludes the Macedonian cubit must have been really short and moves on. 13/xx

Picking up with our bits of iron, Markle follows Andronicos, puts them together, using the ancient measurements as stated producing two unworkably heavy weapons: cavalry 'sarisa' and infantry sarisa.

The fact that they are unworkably heavy does not seem to bother him. 14/xx

Another scholar, P.A. Manti comes along and says, "Hey, these are unworkably heavy" and revives Tarn's idea of a short cubit to make a 15ft version. Problem: these literally cannot do the formation Polybius says they do.

That Polybius *saw* them do. 15/xx

Peter Connolly is, I'd argue, the one who figures this out right beginning from the supposition that whatever else we know about the sarisa, we know it *worked* and so any reconstruction must actually function in the way described in our texts.

Novel idea, I know. 16/xx

So he throws out Andronicos' identifications of what is what, which remember, were based on nothing but speculation in the first place.

Instead he figures that (1) is a cavalry lance butt, (2) is a sarisa point, (3) is a sarisa butt, and (5) and (6) are lance tips. 17/xx

The socket for (3) is wider than the socket for (2) so he figures maybe the sarisa half tapered over its length - later European pikes do that too. He finds some evidence for tapering in artwork of the sarisa - it's not rock solid, but it's there. 18/xx

So Connolly reconstructs with the lengths as written in the sources, plus (2) and (3) and - SURPRISE - gets a functional weapon which balances exactly where it ought to for maximum usability.

(to be clear, he's using manufactured replicas of the originals for this) 19/xx

Connolly then puts (1) and (5) together, matching their haft to the size of a cavalry lance shown on a tomb painting and - SURPRISE - gets a functional weapon which balances exactly where the cavalryman's hand is shown in the painting. 20/xx

The one mistake I think Connolly makes here is that he still thinks this is a cavalry 'sarisa' - I think it is the much more common Xyston, the standard Macedonian cavalry spear. Sarisophoroi - sarisa bearing cavalry - is its own thorny issue we'll skip past here. 21/xx

What about the metal tube? Andronicos guessed that this was meant to join two 9-foot wooden poles to make the complete 18 foot haft for the infantryman's sarisa, for ease of carrying.

Here's the problem: no ancient source says that. 22/xx

Moreover, we have artistic depictions of the infantry sarisa. The Alexander mosaic shows a bunch, including the spot where the connecting tube would go - no tube. No ancient artwork I know of shows this tube, in fact. 23/xx

Remember, that tube was just an iron thing Andronicos found outside the tomb - we don't really know if it was associated with the other finds!

Moreover, I have *real* doubts about the integrity of a 9-foot wooden pole held by a 17cm metal sleeve. 24/xx

A sleeve which, I feel compelled to note, shows no signs of rivet holes or any kind of attachment system. I'm not sure I'd be on board with only using friction to hold together my 19-21 foot long, 4.05kg primary weapon. 25/more

So in practice a two-part sarisa isn't impossible, but there is also basically no evidence for it. We have a tube of unknown purpose which might have been involved.

The problem here is that many for-the-public reconstructions present the tube as 'known' when it isn't. 26/31

By the by, the major problem with the 'short' sarisa as proposed is that Polybius is explicit (Plb. 18.29) that the front five men can bring their weapons into action. He's also explicit about the same each person takes up in line. 27/31

So, in very short that's how we know how long the sarisa was. The weight of its length was counter-balanced by the flanged butt at the back, along with tapering the wooden haft and using a *very* small and light tip.

Which is how a lot of other pikes work so 🤷‍♂️ 28/31

I think here the argument from practicality must bear a lot of weight. C. Matthew (2016) argues that Polybius described formation is impossible to carry out, which is baffling given that P. Connolly (2000) *did* carry it off with a renaissance pike troop; note dates. 29/31

So I keep coming back to the fact that the one thing we know about the sarisa is that it worked and presumably worked as described. 30/31

Finally, spelling note: you may see sarisa and also sarissa. Which is correct? Good news - even the Greeks didn't know and our sources spell it both ways.

So it's up to you! I use sarisa because twitter is parsimonious with characters. 31/end

(but see bibliography)

Bibliography time: the go to summary of the sources on the sarisa is Mixter, "The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great" Ancient World 23 (1992): 21-29.

The best thing to read for reconstructing one is P. Connolly, "Experiments with the Sarissa" Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000): 102-112.

There is a metric TON of other articles, but Connolly discusses them, so read him first.

On the possible non-existence of a cavalry sarisa, note N. Sekunda, "The Sarissa" Acta Universitatis Lodziensis 23 (2001): 13-41. Sekunda is also probably right that Connolly has the wrong wood and it should be ash, not cornel wood used.

There's a lot, a LOT more on the sarisa, but that's what you should actually read. At some point I hope to put together a comprehensive looks at Mediterranean arms and armor in the third and second centuries BCE, but that project is as yet still years away.

Until then, cheers!

Oh, as an addendum, I should add that our sources seem pretty clear that there was some zone for variability with sarisa length. Probably not a lot, but some wiggle room.

Also, the difference between Theophrastus and Polybius is often taken to indicate that these weapons...

...got a little longer over time, as the extra length was valuable in the post-Alexander landscape where the sarisa-phalanx was mostly fighting *other* sarisa-phalanxes.

That's a tempting theory and could be right - but note how thin the evidence it is perched on it.

In any case, the sarisa-bits we have ought to match the earlier, slightly smaller one, since the royal tombs at Aigai are mostly late classical (the tomb the sarisa bits are associated with may actually BE the tomb of Philip II, father of Alexander).

Finally, I am aware of the Shafton Collection spear-butt which is shown by both Sekunda and Matthew in their books, inscribed 'MAK.' Could be real! but it has no secure provenance, so it could be fake! Date unknown!

And so dangerous to extrapolate from.

Another flanged butt like the one pictured above was recovered at Isthmia, but I don't think complete measurements of it have been published, Rostoker & Gebhard, "The Sanctuary of Poseidon as Isthmia" Hesperia 49.4 (1980): 347-363.

Also, Jennifer Gates-Foster et al. presented at SCS/AIA a few years back a set of finds from a Ptolemaic fort which included what they identified as a sarisa element, but I think like (1) it's a xyston butt (also neat!); I don't know the current publication status of it.