Wielding a sarissa overarm

[Justin Swanton]

I've had a crack at working out the point of balance and weight of a sarissa. I took the vergina sauroter, connecting tube and a typical doru spearhead (though the spearhead could equally have been the small one in the tomb), and assumed the shaft was made of ash wood (Staterius, Thebaid: 7.269 - "they brandish as of wont the long ashen Macedonian shafts") rather than cornel wood - Theophrastes only compares the height of a cornelian cherry to a sarissa without affirming the shaft is made of that wood.

The diameter of the sauroter tube is 34mm.
The diameter of the wider end of the connecting tube is 32mm.
The diameter of the narrower end of the connecting tube is 28mm.
The diameter of a doru spearhead tube is 19mm.

The sauroter weighs 1070g and is 44.5cm long.
The connecting tube weighs 200g (a replica was weighed) and is 17cm long.
The doru spearhead weighs 153g and is 27.9cm long.

Assuming the entire sarissa is 12 cubits long (576cm assuming a cubit length of 48cm), I made an estimate of the shaft length by subtracting the lengths of the spearhead and sauroter (discounting the parts of the shaft inserted in the sauroter and spearhead tubes for simplicity), then divided the shaft into two equal halves. Each half is 251.8cm long. I did not subtract the lengths of the shaft in the connecting tube.

The bottom half, between sauroter and connecting tube, would have a wide end diameter of 36mm (corresponding to the diameter of the sauroter tube) and a narrow end diameter of 34mm (corresponding to the wide end diameter of the connecting tube). It can be considered an untapered tube for practical purposes.

The upper half has a wide end diameter of 28mm and a narrow end diameter of 19mm. It has to be considered as a tapered tube.

To calculate the volume of each tube I use this formula:

Volume = (A1 + A2)/2 x L

Where A1 = area of wide end
A2 = area of narrow end
L = length

European ash has a dry weight of 0.68g/cm³. So the weight of the lower tube is 1.64kg and of the upper tube 0.77kg. Total weight of sarissa is 1.07kg + 0.2kg + 0.153kg + 1.64kg + 0.77kg = 3.833kg. Less than most estimates.

To calculate point of balance of the sarissa I assumed the lower tube was untapered and just used halfway up its length as its point of balance. For the upper tube I calculated the weight of an untapered ash tube with a diameter of 28mm then used this formula:

PoB = ½L x M1/M2

Where L = length of each half shaft
M1 = mass of tapered tube
M2 = mass of untapered tube

This gives a PoB for the tapered tube of 92cm from its wider end.

To calculate the PoB of the entire sarissa I adapted Matthew's formula (shaft lengths are foreshortened in the diagram):



Point of Balance  = (M1 x D1) + (M2 x D2) + (M3 x D3) + (M4 x D4) + (M5 x D5) / (M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 + M5)
B = the end of the sauroter
M1 = mass of sauroter
M2 = mass of lower half of shaft
M3 = mass of connecting tube
M4 = mass of upper half of shaft
M5 = mass of pike head
D1 = distance from end of sauroter to point of balance of sauroter
D2 = distance from end of sauroter to point of balance of lower half of shaft
D3 = distance from end of sauroter to point of balance of connecting tube
D4 = distance from end of sauroter to point of balance of upper half of shaft
D5 = distance from end of sauroter to point of balance of pike head

It comes out at 195.45cm from the tip of the sauroter. Very close to Polybios' 4 cubits (192cm), which means that the centre of balance pretty much rested on the left hand.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the effort you put into this arithmetic.  And for the results.

This is rather encouraging, as it indicates a complete sarissa could be in the 8-12 lbs range rather than my earlier pessimistic assumption of 20+ lbs.  If we use 10 lbs (about 4.54 kg) +/- 2 lbs as a guide weight, the weapon is about the weight of a 20th-21st century military rifle - quite handy and not particularly fatiguing to carry on a march.

This does suggest that the general spear weight guide of one pound per foot of length is misleading with regard to the sarissa.

For what it is worth, this page gives a density of 0.75g/cm3 for dogwood (cornel wood) and 0.71 for European ash.  The 'fraxinea' referred to by Staterius is most probably mountain ash (rowan), whose wood is much tougher than common ash species; I have seen the specific gravity of this wood quoted as from 0.64 to 0.77 (perhaps the difference between wet and dry weights).

[Erpingham]

The 'fraxinea' referred to by Staterius is most probably mountain ash (rowan), whose wood is much tougher than common ash species; I have seen the specific gravity of this wood quoted as from 0.64 to 0.77 (perhaps the difference between wet and dry weights).

Any reason for this assumption?  Rowan trees are not known for their long, straight growth habit, unlike the ash.

[Justin Swanton]

Here's my source for the mass of European Ash. The wood experts will have to fight over it.

[Erpingham]

This quote from an earlier discussion we had on the subject of sarissa weights from Duncan provides useful leads to estimated weights

Markle in the 1970s estimated 14.5 lb for an 18-foot cornel sarissa, constant diameter, large spearhead - someone quoted this on RAT:
Quote

    The eighteen-foot sarissa minus the length of the point and its socket (0.51 m. = 1 ft. 8 in.) and that of the butt-spike (0.445 m. = 1 ft. 6 in.) would equal 178 in., excluding the cones of wood inserted into the sockets of the head and butt. The volume of this shaft (π r2 h: 3.14 x .56 x 178) would be 313 cu. in., and its weight would be this figure times .03 lbs. per cu. in., which would be 9.39 lbs. The weight of the iron sarissa-head is 1235 grammes = 2.7 lbs. and that of the butt-spike 1070 grammes =2.4 lbs. (The weight of the coupling sleeve is not given and is hereby excluded.) The total weight of the eighteen-foot sarissa is thus 14.5 lbs. On the assumption that a fifteen-foot sarissa had iron parts of the same weight and size as those described above, it would weigh about 12 lbs.


The more recent reconstruction by Connolly ("Experiments with the sarissa – the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view", JRMES 11, 2000), and estimates by Sekunda ("The Sarissa," in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica 23: 2001), assuming the smaller spearhead, tapered shaft, and in S's case at least the use of lighter ash, result in lower weights even though, IIRC, they both use large buttspikes.

[Justin Swanton]

This quote from an earlier discussion we had on the subject of sarissa weights from Duncan provides useful leads to estimated weights

Markle in the 1970s estimated 14.5 lb for an 18-foot cornel sarissa, constant diameter, large spearhead - someone quoted this on RAT:
Quote

    The eighteen-foot sarissa minus the length of the point and its socket (0.51 m. = 1 ft. 8 in.) and that of the butt-spike (0.445 m. = 1 ft. 6 in.) would equal 178 in., excluding the cones of wood inserted into the sockets of the head and butt. The volume of this shaft (π r2 h: 3.14 x .56 x 178) would be 313 cu. in., and its weight would be this figure times .03 lbs. per cu. in., which would be 9.39 lbs. The weight of the iron sarissa-head is 1235 grammes = 2.7 lbs. and that of the butt-spike 1070 grammes =2.4 lbs. (The weight of the coupling sleeve is not given and is hereby excluded.) The total weight of the eighteen-foot sarissa is thus 14.5 lbs. On the assumption that a fifteen-foot sarissa had iron parts of the same weight and size as those described above, it would weigh about 12 lbs.


The more recent reconstruction by Connolly ("Experiments with the sarissa – the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view", JRMES 11, 2000), and estimates by Sekunda ("The Sarissa," in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica 23: 2001), assuming the smaller spearhead, tapered shaft, and in S's case at least the use of lighter ash, result in lower weights even though, IIRC, they both use large buttspikes.

That calculates weight on the assumption that the large Vergina 'spearhead' - which weighs more than the sauroter (!) - belongs to the sarissa. However it seems better to consider it as the buttspike of a cavalry lance as per the Alexander mosaic as it appears far too large for a spearhead. Such a sarissa would be front heavy, obliging the phalangite to hold it near the middle as it would be difficult to keep it up from near the sauroter.

[RichT]

There is no particular reason to associate the 'Vergina sauroter' with a sarissa, other than that it's big and was found in Macedonia, which is also pretty much the only reason to associate the big spearhead with a sarissa. Sekunda doubts both, with good reason. I also don't think a high status tomb is the place to look for a rank and file infantryman's weapon. The same applies (and more so) to the 'connecting tube'. Given these uncertainties, calculating the weight and balance of a sarissa (which sarissa?) seems a forlorn hope, though there's no harm in setting some upper or lower limits.

"For the Greeks have difficulty in holding only their sarissai when on the march and in supporting the fatigue caused by their weight", Polybius 18.18.3

How heavy is heavy depends on many factors of course, not least practice - probably more so than on actual mass.

[Patrick Waterson]

The 'fraxinea' referred to by Staterius is most probably mountain ash (rowan), whose wood is much tougher than common ash species; I have seen the specific gravity of this wood quoted as from 0.64 to 0.77 (perhaps the difference between wet and dry weights).

Any reason for this assumption?  Rowan trees are not known for their long, straight growth habit, unlike the ash.

Yes.  The one rowan which grew in my garden (a bit too close to the house, so it had to come down) grew straight as a die.  Or a pikeshaft. Or whatever.

Mature rowans tend to branch in true deciduous style (as do mature ashes) but young ones seem straight enough.  Our masters of knowledge, or at least information, at Wikipedia kindly provide this shot of what they identify as a game-damaged rowan.  It is a relatively young one and looks quite straight to me.

How heavy is heavy depends on many factors of course, not least practice - probably more so than on actual mass.

True.  One might surmise that if practised troops still found the weapon to be heavy, it may in fact have been on the heavier side of our calculations.  That said, Philip V was notorious for putting his troops through long, rapid marches, which would accentuate the weight and exacerbate the fatigue involved.

Here's my source for the mass of European Ash. The wood experts will have to fight over it.

That is probably a better source than the one I linked.

[Erpingham]

Yes.  The one rowan which grew in my garden (a bit too close to the house, so it had to come down) grew straight as a die.  Or a pikeshaft. Or whatever.

So, no sources or reconstruction evidence?  Given the sources say that ash was used and the long tradition of using ash for hafting, it seems odd to suggest rowan.  But then others have suggested cornel (based on a misreading of a text, as mentioned by Justin) and pine.

[PMBardunias]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the effort you put into this arithmetic.  And for the results.

This is rather encouraging, as it indicates a complete sarissa could be in the 8-12 lbs range rather than my earlier pessimistic assumption of 20+ lbs.  If we use 10 lbs (about 4.54 kg) +/- 2 lbs as a guide weight, the weapon is about the weight of a 20th-21st century military rifle - quite handy and not particularly fatiguing to carry on a march.

This does suggest that the general spear weight guide of one pound per foot of length is misleading with regard to the sarissa.

I have never heard of this rule of thumb, but my 9 foot dory does not weigh 9 lbs.

One caution, carrying a sarissa will be much different than carrying a Garand rifle into war.  The length adds a whole new dimension of awkwardness and torque that makes carrying at anything by the vertical a much different experience than carrying a rifle.  I recall reading that in the 30 years war Wallenstein's men kept chucking away their pikes on long marches.

If you want to check different wood types and density easily, you can input the different densities into that calculator I linked to- quite a time saver.  I used cornel to show just how wrong the calculations in that book were.

The question of whether the Vergina sauroter is for a sarissa is interesting.  If we wish to put the balance that far back, we would need something like that.  But renaissance pike did not have one, so perhaps looking to move the balance back is a mistake. Balance point is far less important with a two handed spear than it is with a dory.

That big vergina sauroter is something, perhaps a cavalry sauroter like the other.  Wonder if that mace shaped thing can be used on horseback.

[Erpingham]

For comparison, we might note that genuine renaissance pikes from Solothurn are about 4.5 m long and weigh 2.5-3.0 kg.  A  cavalry spear from Henry VIII's reign in the Royal Armouries is 2.3m long and weighs 1.39 kg.  These would suggest the "rule of thumb" is not universally applicable.

A key question is how thick we think the sarissae (?) are. We have used a tapered weapon based on the difference in circumference between the head, the collar and the butt.  If we reject the collar and the butt as components, do we have evidence for taper?

[nikgaukroger]

For comparison, we might note that genuine renaissance pikes from Solothurn are about 4.5 m long and weigh 2.5-3.0 kg.  A  cavalry spear from Henry VIII's reign in the Royal Armouries is 2.3m long and weighs 1.39 kg.  These would suggest the "rule of thumb" is not universally applicable.

To be honest it sounds the sort of "rule" made up by somebody who hasn't researched the topic 

[nikgaukroger]

One caution, carrying a sarissa will be much different than carrying a Garand rifle into war.  The length adds a whole new dimension of awkwardness and torque that makes carrying at anything by the vertical a much different experience than carrying a rifle.

IIRC people who have marched carrying reproduction pikes report that they flex and vibrate as you march which makes them less than easy to carry and also quite fatiguing.

[RichT]

True, the Vergina sauroter must be something, but what? Only two have ever been found to my knowledge (the Vergina original, and one in Greece). The shape with that four winged part is odd - Sekunda's suggestion is that it was intended to be pushed into soft ground. Possibilities:

- the butt of a sarissa (least likely to my mind, but almost universally accepted)
- the butt of a cavalry spear
- the butt of another type of spear, perhaps a bodyguard's spear
- the butt of a hunting spear
- the butt of a ceremonial spear or badge of office (perhaps a Bodyguard's)
- the butt of a standard (hence, pushing into soft ground, to be set up outside an officer's tent or some such)

The connecting sleeve is (to my knowledge) unique, though it seems almost universally accepted it was a two-part sarissa connector (which to my mind is the least likely possibility, even less likely than the big butt being a sarissa butt).

If we aren't sure of the butt or head, and aren't sure if the connector has anything to do with the sarissa, then we have no data regarding diameter or taper, sadly. There's nothing in the literary sources (TMK). Some people claim to see a taper in some artistic depictions eg the Alexander mosaic - if they are sarissai! - or the Agios Athanasios facade.

Wood - I'm convinced by the ash argument but as even that is not certain, weight and balance calculations are always going to be on the vague side.

Carrying on the march must have been the hard part - how did later pikemen carry pikes - I recall 'trailing' - is this dragging it on the ground?

Having just watched some pole vaulting on TV, it occurs to me that a pole vaulter's pole is a lot like a sarissa. Of course modern ones being carbon fibre must be very light, but (the internet informs me) they were originally made of ash and can be 5 metres long (maybe originally - in their role as ditch-crossers - they were pikes?). Pole vaulters have no problem holding them at the end, running, and planting them accurately (and switching from low hold to high hold while doing so, to risk restarting the original topic of this thread). Carrying one around all day cross country would be a pain, I can well imagine.

[Erpingham]

Carrying on the march must have been the hard part - how did later pikemen carry pikes - I recall 'trailing' - is this dragging it on the ground?

Probably the easiest way was on the shoulder.  This was the common way of carrying spears on the march too.



I think I've seen trail on rare occassions in medieval contexts.  The problem with trail is it literally trails the pike along the ground.  It's difficult in any kind of formation as you trip over one of the pikes in front and your own is dragged out of your hand when somebody steps on it, causing the line concertina in as you stop and go back for it