Wielding a sarissa overarm

[Jim Webster]

Whatever the issue length of the pike, it was apparently pretty usual for troops to cut them down to something sensible

[Justin Swanton]

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 Of course modern ones being carbon fibre must be very light, but (the internet informs me) they were originally made of ash and can be 5 metres long (maybe originally - in their role as ditch-crossers - they were pikes?).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.

From the sources we have three things that fix the parameters of the sarissa:

1. It has a small spearhead: What if I allow myself to speak of the immense contoi of the Macedonians? How long are the shafts and how mean the teeth they spike them with! - Grattius, Cynegeticon: 117-118

2. Its length varied between 10-12 cubits (480-576cm), and later 14-16 cubits (672-768cm): Askepiodotus and after him Arrian described the sarissa as it was originally conceived under Philip and Alexander. This is the 10–12 cubit weapon. Theophrastes, writing in 322 BC, gives this length. Polyaenus gives a length of 16 cubits for Macedonian sarissas around the year 300 BC. This is the 'original design' of Polybios, which had been reduced to 14 cubits by the battle of Pydna (148BC). This 16 to 14 cubit reduction is echoed by Aelian.

3. Its point of balance was somewhere between 2 and 4 cubits from the end of the sauroter: and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front - Polybios, Histories: 18.29

So we are looking for a small spearhead hence the large Vergina 'spearhead' is discounted and the small javelin-like spearhead is a possibility. The sauroter must be large enough to act as a counterbalance that shifts the PoB well towards the back end of the weapon. The shaft must be fairly thick given its length, so it is reasonable to assume it tapers to match the diameter of the spearhead tube (and the Alexander mosaic shows tapering lances - whether Macedonian sarissas or mercenary hoplite spears is irrelevant, tapering is what works at that length). The archaeological record must fit all this. The large Vergina sauroter ticks the box as does the large 'spearhead' understood as a sauroter. The connecting tube is speculative and not indispensable to understanding how the sauroter worked or looked, but it does make sense (much easier to get two half-shafts from a tree and carry them on the march than a single long shaft).

[Jim Webster]

I confess I'm never been convinced by the connecting tube 

[PMBardunias]

3. Its point of balance was somewhere between 2 and 4 cubits from the end of the sauroter: and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front - Polybios, Histories: 18.29

It is important to note that this is not the same as saying the point of balance was at 4 cubits. This could well mean that 4 cubits from the rear were needed to help hold a spear whose point of balance were higher up on the shaft.  You can hold a spear quite easily back from its point of balance, but with every foot it will become more difficult.  Four cubits may be the point where the trade off occurs.

Also, I live on Florida, so I jam all kings of spikes into sand all the time- umbrellas, fishing pole holders- and I use a plain old tube without wings of any sort.  It looks to me more like something designed to block over-penetration.

I have a theory that Iphicrates armed his jumped up peltasts with 12 foot spears that were not tapered. He increased the length of the dory, probably 8 feet at the time, to about 12 feet. 12 feet is about as long as a one handed spear can get, though I do not rule out that he switched to a two hand grip that would be a proto-sarissa. But if you are holding a spear in two hands, why limit to 12 feet rather than just making a 15' plus sarissa?

Instead, what I think he was doing was creating a cheaper form of dory.  A properly tapered and weighted dory with a point of balance near the rear has a reach of as much of 5-6' past the hand. Creating such a spear was no easy feat in the field, and probably cost a bit as well.  A simple, untapered spear that has the same reach past the hand would have to be 12'.  So the same spear functionally at less cost. This also explains why the Macedonians get credit for the new formation modeled on a passage from the illiad.  They were the first to hold the spear in two hands and lead with the left, thus they could stand at 45cm- and to go longer than 12 feet.  If this logical progression holds, then untapered would be my guess for early sarissa, but they could have followed the same evolution as the dory and become longer by tapering the shaft.

[Patrick Waterson]

I have a theory that Iphicrates armed his jumped up peltasts with 12 foot spears that were not tapered. He increased the length of the dory, probably 8 feet at the time, to about 12 feet. 12 feet is about as long as a one handed spear can get, though I do not rule out that he switched to a two hand grip that would be a proto-sarissa. But if you are holding a spear in two hands, why limit to 12 feet rather than just making a 15' plus sarissa?

A thought: we may be able to reconcile Diodorus and Nepos on this subject, and in doing so arrive at the approximate length.  If we take the doru (dory) as varying between seven and nine feet, and Diodorus calculates one-and-a-half times the length of a nine-foot spear while Nepos is using a seven-foot spear as the baseline for his doubling, both arrive at c.14 feet.

The combination of longer spear with a smaller shield brings us temptingly close to the suggestion that Iphicrates' new model troops would have used their spears two-handed.  One might consider that the pelta was used to save weight, and this might be at least in part true, but its use by Macedonian phalangites indicates there may be more to it than just that.

It is important to note that this is not the same as saying the point of balance was at 4 cubits. This could well mean that 4 cubits from the rear were needed to help hold a spear whose point of balance were higher up on the shaft.  You can hold a spear quite easily back from its point of balance, but with every foot it will become more difficult.  Four cubits may be the point where the trade off occurs.

Although were I wielding a 21 to 24-foot pike I would be very grateful for a counterweight putting the centre of balance somewhere in the 2 to 4 cubit zone.   The impression I get about craftsmanship of the Hellenistic era is that weapons and other items of war were designed primarily for ease of use rather than for cheapness and convenience of production (although one does see the Romans in particular cutting cost corners as Republic succeeds to Empire).  Saving money was important in the 4th century BC; it seems to have been much less of a priority for the various Macedonian post-Alexander regimes when there was so much more of it around.

I confess I'm never been convinced by the connecting tube 

I think Duncan more recently decided against that idea, too.

[Justin Swanton]

A properly tapered and weighted dory with a point of balance near the rear has a reach of as much of 5-6' past the hand. Creating such a spear was no easy feat in the field, and probably cost a bit as well.  A simple, untapered spear that has the same reach past the hand would have to be 12'.

I really wonder if it is that much more difficult to make a round tapered shaft than a round untapered one. I mean, it's not easy to create a circular tube of wood from a tree trunk in the first place. The wood has to be split into regular sections then each section carefully honed with a knife or sanding tool into a rounded shape that is the same diameter along its length. If a craftsman can do that, then adding a taper should be no big deal.

[Mick Hession]

Much simpler to use a lathe, which according to Wikipedia had been developed by the 6th century BC at latest.

Cheers
Mick

[Justin Swanton]

Much simpler to use a lathe, which according to Wikipedia had been developed by the 6th century BC at latest.

Cheers
Mick

Oh, right. In which case doing a taper should be a breeze. Something like this combined with this.

In fact, custom-made lance lathes seem to have been the norm in the Middle Ages. If the mediaevals could do it I imagine the Macedonians would have had no problem.

[Jim Webster]

A simple pole lathe for you 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfnL98Fu6kw

[Justin Swanton]

A simple pole lathe for you 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfnL98Fu6kw

Nice!

[Erpingham]

Has anyone tracked a picture of lance lathe yet?  Pole lathes are great but, like the ones in the video, they are usually seen working on things about the size of a chair leg.  We need to envision a lathe that can handle something five or six metres long.

[Jim Webster]

Has anyone tracked a picture of lance lathe yet?  Pole lathes are great but, like the ones in the video, they are usually seen working on things about the size of a chair leg.  We need to envision a lathe that can handle something five or six metres long.

I remember them talking about the really big lathe they had in the shipyard here for working on the barrels of the big guns. Apparently at the lengths they were talking, even a steel barrel needs a lot of supports as you work on it lest it sag.

I suspect a lance lathe would be the same as a pole lathe but you'd probably have a number of apprentices working on it at once, and they'd each have a 'stand' supporting the lance

[Erpingham]

I suspect a lance lathe would be the same as a pole lathe but you'd probably have a number of apprentices working on it at once, and they'd each have a 'stand' supporting the lance

Certainly possible.  Given the period (Late 15th-16th century) its also possible these were in workshops driven by water power.  We might note though that a lance and a pike are at different ends of the quality and difficulty line.  Look at a renaissance lance and you can see why it needed turning on a lathe.  It maybe that making more straightforward things like 5m pikes was done by gangs of apprentices roughly shaping square dowels with axes, followed by skilled craftsmen finishing them with draw knives or similar.

[RichT]

Yes I've always understood spears were made with a spokeshave (or equivalent). A lathe is good when you have a complex shape like a chair leg or the handle of a jousting lance, but isn't necessary for a simple straight (or tapered) spear. Turning anything with bend in it (like a pike) on a lathe would be tricky.

[Justin Swanton]

Yes I've always understood spears were made with a spokeshave (or equivalent). A lathe is good when you have a complex shape like a chair leg or the handle of a jousting lance, but isn't necessary for a simple straight (or tapered) spear. Turning anything with bend in it (like a pike) on a lathe would be tricky.

To quote from the Knights of Iron re-enactment group: "Once we settled on a wood we had to develop the machines. Again, we took cues from historical lance lathes. Our machinery is really just high tech versions of what was used 500 years ago. In fact our lance lathes are largely based on images of lance lathes from the period."