SoA Forums

History => Ancient and Medieval History => Weapons and Tactics => Topic started by: Justin Swanton on January 11, 2019, 09:57:14 PM

Title: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 11, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
Myke Cole's Legion vs Phalanx brought up yet again the old, old problem of the hellenistic phalanx. The manuals are all clear that it could compact its files to close order - 1 cubit (1½) feet per file - whilst on the battlefield, even if this was only a defensive formation designed to received an attack. Problem is that with shields 2 feet wide, 1½ feet means the shields will be overlapping each other by 6 inches on average, leaving insufficient space to present five ranks of sarissas beyond the frontmost rank. Thus far I've seen four solutions to the problem:

1. There isn't a problem. They could do it (with no explanation as to how they did it).

2. They didn't deploy in close formation. That applied to hoplite phalanxes in which spears were presented overarm (but the manuals clearly refer to the hellenistic phalanx).

3. The shields didn't overlap but were angled to allow space for the sarissas (but in that case the shield edges would have had to virtually face the enemy, making them useless).

4. The phalangites raised their spears vertically in close order, relying exclusively on their shields for protection. (Roman centurion: "Help yourselves, lads!")

Only practical solution: the phalangites presented their sarissas overarm, with exception of the front rank who would have presented them underarm at least to receive a cavalry charge. The question then is how did the phalangites hold up their sarissas, sometimes for long periods of times, without overstraining their arm muscles? It is a real problem.

Looking through Renaissance pike manuals, it's clear that pikemen had to contrive support for both their arms. They did this by holding the left arm close to the chest. The bones of the arm, rather than the arm muscles, bore the weight of the levelled pike, in the same way an archer's bones, at full draw, bear the weight of the bow rather than his muscles having to do it (which is why it is easier to hold a bow at full draw than it is to draw it in the first place). The Renaissance pike was not counterweighted, meaning that the levelled pike was front-heavy, the rear end having a strong tendency to tip upwards. The pikeman countered this by holding the butt of the pike with his right hand and letting the weight of his arm keep the rear end level. Quite an ingenious arrangement.

(https://i.imgur.com/bXNBrti.jpg)

Some pike manuals have pikemen using shields slung from their shoulders with straps. They were clearly emulating the hellenistic pikemen. One diagram from a manual showed a way of presenting a pike overarm whilst resting the left elbow on the porpax:

(https://i.imgur.com/7cUnQYc.jpg)

The difference between renaissance and hellenistic pikemen was the fact that the renaissance pike had no sauroter and so was not in fact gripped at its centre of balance. The classical pike was, which meant you could not rest your right arm by holding on to the butt. The pike would tip upwards. However, if the pikeman held the pike at its centre of balance with his right arm, and then gripped the pike forward of that with his left hand whilst his left elbow rested on his shield's porpax, he would have a ready weapon which did not impose any undue strain on his arm muscles. Something like this (excuse the manipulated image):

(https://i.imgur.com/OVq7n25.jpg)

This would be the 'rest' position. With a bit of adjustment of his shield strap, he could hold the pike such that it angled upwards over the shoulders of the men in front of him. He could quite easily raise the pike and then jab it forward at the enemy over the heads of the pikemen in front of him. Shields can now overlap without getting in the way of the pikes and one can retain the hellenistic phalanx as a close order formation with ''shields together" sunaspismos, without having to force the text in any direction.

I read somewhere though that phalangite shields didn't have porpaxes, which would pretty much scuttle this hypothesis (well, make it limp anyway). Is the lack of porpax an established fact?

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 12, 2019, 08:39:07 AM
The Wikipedia Ancient Macedonian Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army#Macedonian_shields) entry, which seems to sum up current thinking on the subject, has this:

"The Macedonian phalangite shield, also termed the 'Telamon shield', was circular and displayed a slight convexity; its outer surface was faced by a thin bronze sheet. The inner face of the shield was of wood or a multilayered leather construction, with a band for the forearm fixed to the centre of the shield. Plutarch noted that the phalangites (phalanx soldiers) carried a small shield on their shoulder. This probably meant that, as both hands were needed to hold the sarissa, the shield was worn suspended by a shoulder strap and steadied by the left forearm passing through the armband. The left hand would project beyond the rim of the shield to grip the sarissa. Recent reconstructions of the sarissa and phalangite shield showed that the shoulder strap supporting the shield effectively helps to transfer some of the weight of the sarissa from the left arm to the shoulders when the sarissa is held horizontally in its fighting position. The Macedonian phalangite shield is described by Asclepiodotus (Tactica, 5) as being eight palms wide (equivalent to 62 cm or 24 inches) and "not too hollow"."

It is believed there was a porpax, although there appears to be no conclusive proof either way, but in the acid test of employing a replica the strap-and-porpax arrangement seems to work.

Using the sarissa overarm has its attractions, although I wonder how one gets from pikes upright to pikes overarm pointing at the enemy.  All to do with the centre of balance, I imagine.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 12, 2019, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 12, 2019, 08:39:07 AMUsing the sarissa overarm has its attractions, although I wonder how one gets from pikes upright to pikes overarm pointing at the enemy.  All to do with the centre of balance, I imagine.

I imagine a hellenistic pikeman would use a drill similar to that of a Renaissance pikeman. If you hold your pike vertical with the thumbs of left and right hands pointing downwards and the right hand gripping the pikeshaft around the level of the waist (about 3 feet off the ground) then all you have to do is hoist the pike upwards and lower it forwards. You'll find that your right hand is holding the pike at its centre of gravity.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 12, 2019, 12:26:17 PM
Justin wrote:

Only practical solution: the phalangites presented their sarissas overarm, with exception of the front rank who would have presented them underarm at least to receive a cavalry charge. The question then is how did the phalangites hold up their sarissas, sometimes for long periods of times, without overstraining their arm muscles? It is a real problem.

But it's not the only practical solution: if they had to squeeze up, angling the shields would probably be how they managed it, and it wouldn't require a change from the normal way the pike was held.

See here for example. Even though the shield is angled, the body is still quite well covered, and presumably the smaller phalangite shield could be used in a similar way.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Macedonian_Army_Pezetairos.jpg/220px-Macedonian_Army_Pezetairos.jpg)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 12, 2019, 01:24:25 PM
Didn't we do this a few years ago?

Conclusion, no evidence for over arm exists until the renaissance
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 12, 2019, 01:33:50 PM
Quote from: Mark G on January 12, 2019, 01:24:25 PM
Didn't we do this a few years ago?

Conclusion, no evidence for over arm exists until the renaissance

This thread just looks at the mechanics of wielding a pike overarm without fatiguing the arm muscles. Re the other discussion there's no evidence that all the phalangites except the front rank wielded their pikes underarm either (nor that the front rankers did so except against cavalry), which leaves the question at which option presents the fewest practical problems.

As regards angled shields, Paul Connolley did a diagram of what that would look like. I see big exposed areas of the phalangites' bodies behind the shields just begging to be exploited by enterprising skirmishers.

(https://i.imgur.com/1UjF38e.jpg)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 12, 2019, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 12, 2019, 01:33:50 PM
I see big exposed areas of the phalangites' bodies behind the shields just begging to be exploited by enterprising skirmishers.

All the more reason to deploy with c.3 foot frontage per man and have other troops in support.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 12, 2019, 04:47:26 PM
Yes we did do this, not years ago, but March 2018.

This thread: http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3241.0

Unless there's any new evidence or argument to present here, is there any value in going over it all again? I expect you will find answers to your specific questions in that thread (there's twelve pages of it).

Some comments:

Asclepiodotus says the best shield for the phalanx is two feet in diameter (eight palms), but there is plentiful evidence that larger shields were also used. What relevance that has to the subject under discussion I don't know, but it always rankles when Asclepiodotus' evidence is misused this way.

Most people assume that the sarissa had a sauroter or counterweight of some sort, but there is no evidence for this (no evidence either way).

The Macedonian shield and lack of porpax - you are thinking of Plutarch (Cleomenes 11.3) who says that Cleomenes, when re-equipping the Spartans in the Macedonian style, trained them "to carry the shield (aspis) not with a porpax but with an ochane". Exactly what this means could be the subject of another long, indecisive discussion.

I like and admire Wikipedia, but it's not evidence (except for the opinion of the person who wrote the article).

I don't think anyone except Christopher Matthew thinks phalangites couldn't deploy at one cubit, and I've not come across anyone who agrees with him. Whether they habitually did is another matter (another matter that has been worked over interminably for a hundred years and more).

"Only practical solution" - there may be lots of practical solutions. Nobody has explored all the possibilities. Delbruck and Connolly both performed practical experiments and concluded that the one cubit spacing (presumably with underarm hold) posed no problem, but their experiments were sloppily designed and/or inadequately documented, and haven't settled the question definitively. Matthew concluded that the one cubit spacing is impossible, but whether this is based on practical experiments is not clear from his writing. I really wish someone (some reenactment group, or someone with a bit of time/money to spare) would design and conduct a proper experiment and fully document it - it would be easy (given time/money).

The overarm hold is perfectly possible, but there's no evidence for it. There is evidence for the underarm hold (see other thread). We can't rule out the overarm hold - it remains an interesting possibility. Is there anything else (new) to say?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 12, 2019, 05:39:05 PM
QuoteI like and admire Wikipedia, but it's not evidence (except for the opinion of the person who wrote the article).

Actually, a wikipedia article should never in theory be the "opinion of the person who wrote the article" as it breaches core tenets of editing such as WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:OR (original research).  Wikipedia should be built on reputable secondary sources (WP:RS) which are cited so all information can be traced to source.  Of course, its often not true.  Even if use use RS, you can be selective about which ones.

To the case in hand, the two sources for Patrick's quoted passage are :

Connolly, P. (1981) Greece and Rome at War. Macdonald Phoebus, London. ISBN 1-85367-303-X
Markle, M.M. (1982) Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in the History of Art, Vol 10, Symposium Series I: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, pp. 86–111. National Gallery of Art.

I'd be happy to call those RS.  My only issue would be they are old sources - there may be newer evidence out there.  Almost certainly, there is newer analysis of the evidence.  I expect Rich, Duncan and several others to be more up on this question, therefore.


Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 12, 2019, 05:51:42 PM
I forgot we had a Wikipediast in our midst, and intended no slight :)

My point was just that, if the question is 'were Macedonian shields wielded with a porpax?', quoting Wikipedia, Markle or Connolly doesn't get us very far - Wikipedia is just quoting Markle and Connolly, and Markle and Connolly don't know, though they have some intelligent speculation. There is no newer evidence out there (or if there is, it is still underground, or wrapped up in a charred mass, or something); there is plenty of newer analysis but none of it is conclusive. So far as Wikipedia gives current thinking of some reputable thinkers, it's fine. That's all it does.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 12, 2019, 06:16:30 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 12, 2019, 04:47:26 PM
The overarm hold is perfectly possible, but there's no evidence for it. There is evidence for the underarm hold (see other thread). We can't rule out the overarm hold - it remains an interesting possibility. Is there anything else (new) to say?

Sorry for resurrecting an old topic, but seeing what it did to Christopher Matthew and Myke Cole rekindled my interest in the close order and overarm/underarm question.

Re evidence for the underarm hold, would that be exclusively the Pergamon plaque or is there anything else?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 12, 2019, 06:23:15 PM
QuoteSo far as Wikipedia gives current thinking of some reputable thinkers, it's fine. That's all it does.

That is indeed the wiki-plan :)  It's an encyclopedia that collates together information collected and digested by others.  Rather less simple in practice, of course.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 12, 2019, 06:27:52 PM
Quote
Re evidence for the underarm hold, would that be exclusively the Pergamon plaque or is there anything else?

Do re-read the other thread, it will answer your question.

If the question is, what artistic depictions are there of phalangites in combat? - there is only one, the Pergamon plaque (and even that was lost at the end of WW2, and all we have now is the line drawing from the original publication). Arguably the Alexander Sarcophagus also depicts phalangites in combat, but they are not fighting as phalangites.

Edited to add - I'm forgetting the Aemilius Paulus monument, but they aren't fighting as phalangites either (at least, they don't have sarissai).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 13, 2019, 09:46:15 AM
Having reread the Feb-March 2018 thread (I have a bad memory and need to refresh the arguments in my head from time to time) it is clear that besides the Pergamon plaque that shows two phalangites bracing to receive a cavalry charge, there is no evidence, literary or pictoral, that proves phalangites wielded their sarissas underarm.

It seems pretty clear that the two phalangites in the plaque are side-by-side: the left leg of the leftmost phalangite is in front of the right leg of the rightmost phalangite, and the sarissa of the leftmost phalangite appears to be in front of the rightmost phalangite's shield - it is certainly in front of the legionary who himself is in front of the rightmost phalangite. So the plaque has nothing to say about how the rear ranks of the phalanx wielded their sarissas, nor even how the front rank wielded them when not facing cavalry.

Which means the arguments come down practicalities, and the ones that remain practical whilst doing the minimum of violence to the sources* are IMHO preferable.

*cue the manuals
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 13, 2019, 07:52:48 PM
Did you really just argue that despite there being no evidence to support your theory, if we dismiss the evidence for the more normal position, your theory becomes equally valid?

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 13, 2019, 08:50:12 PM
Quote from: Mark G on January 13, 2019, 07:52:48 PM
Did you really just argue that despite there being no evidence to support your theory, if we dismiss the evidence for the more normal position, your theory becomes equally valid?

Not really. I just argued that there is very little source evidence, and none of it conclusive, for the underarm hold*, just as there is very little source evidence, and none of it conclusive**, for the overarm hold. Which leaves you looking at which works better, or more precisely which works better for a pike phalanx in close order, 1½ feet per file.

*Pergamon plaque
**Arrian, Tactica: 12
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Andreas Johansson on January 13, 2019, 09:38:26 PM
If the plaque isn't conclusive evidence that the underarm hold was used*, I struggle to imagine what would be.

But having just read Tactica 12, I can't see that it says anything at all about how the pike was held. Enlighten me?


* Not necessarily exclusively, of course.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 13, 2019, 10:16:29 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 13, 2019, 09:38:26 PM
If the plaque isn't conclusive evidence that the underarm hold was used*, I struggle to imagine what would be.

But having just read Tactica 12, I can't see that it says anything at all about how the pike was held. Enlighten me?


* Not necessarily exclusively, of course.

The plaque shows two front rank phalangites wielding their sarissas underarm to receive a cavalry charge. For the front rank, there is no problem presenting pikes underarm or overarm - they can used them freely in either case. The problem starts with the second rank going backwards. So the plaque is no proof that all ranks in a phalanx held their sarissas underarm which is what is in question.

Regarding Arrian I have Ars Tactica 12 in mind: "Round about they stand back successively so that each hoplite in the front is covered by six sarissas". The word 'covered' in Greek is πεφράχθαι from φράσσω which means 'fence in,' 'hedge round,' conveying the image of the fronk rank phalangite being surrounded by a protective gauntlet of sarissas - from his own file - which is much better conveyed by sarissas held overarm and projecting past his shoulders (on either side), than by a tight bundle of sarissas projecting past him below waist height on his right. Indicative but not conclusive.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 14, 2019, 07:12:03 AM
Wow
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 14, 2019, 09:26:48 AM
We went over your interpretation, Justin, of Arrian Tactica 12 last time around. It isn't evidence one way or another. You think it fits better with an overarm hold (this is called 'confirmation bias' - which is an interesting subject in itself and there is lots of evidence of it on this forum :) ) - nobody else sees it this way - it might mean an overarm hold, it might not, we just can't tell.

So the scores are:

Artistic depictions of underarm: 1
Artistic depictions of overarm: 0

Literary descriptions of underarm: 0
Literary descriptions of overarm: 0
(inasmuch as none of them are explicit)

Practical demonstrations of underarm: 2
Practical demonstrations of overarm: 0
(where Delbruck and Connolly find underarm works fine at one cubit, and Matthew argues against both one cubit and overarm. Actually Delbruck among all his many faults isn't explicit about the hold either, so you could reduce the score to 1:0)

So underarm is comfortably heading the table at the moment. You could turn it around by conducting an experiment that demonstrates that underarm is impossible at one cubit (you would ideally also need to explain why Connolly got it wrong). You can't do this alone - you'd need, by my reckoning, 15 people with sarissas and shields. This would then provide strong evidence that overarm is true ('once you have eliminated the impossible...'). Unless and until you do that, all we can say is that overarm is possible but there's no evidence for it, which doesn't warrant a discussion or an article or a paragraph and barely a sentence, but does still make a decent footnote in history.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 14, 2019, 11:26:25 AM
Let's have a teeny look at that score.

QuoteArtistic depictions of underarm: 1
Artistic depictions of overarm: 0

Artistic depiction shows only the front rank receiving a cavalry charge. It gives no idea about what the other ranks are doing. But it does clearly show underarm, so I give it a ½.

QuotePractical demonstrations of underarm: 2
Practical demonstrations of overarm: 0
(where Delbruck and Connolly find underarm works fine at one cubit, and Matthew argues against both one cubit and overarm. Actually Delbruck among all his many faults isn't explicit about the hold either, so you could reduce the score to 1:0)

Connolly says that it works fine underarm at 1 cubit but I notice he includes no photos to prove it. Until I see photos,  0:0

So the final score is 0:½. Pretty close I'd say.

But the bottom line is: let someone show me a close order phalanx, shields at least touching each other, that can present pikes under the shields and advance up a river bank (Issus) without the spearheads sticking in the turf and I'll throw away the scoreboard.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 14, 2019, 11:38:36 AM
It's always a lively topic. There was a discussion on boardgamegeek recently in which a strongly opinionated person who had done some society of creative anachronism type role-play fighting thought Polybius was full of it, and Peter Connolly's experiments laughable. Reckoned that anyone who'd been in the thick of it like he had knew it exactly how a phalanx fought, and you didn't need shields for it, unless perhaps you were in the first rank and there were missile types around...

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 14, 2019, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: Prufrock on January 14, 2019, 11:38:36 AM
It's always a lively topic. There was a discussion on boardgamegeek recently in which a strongly opinionated person who had done some society of creative anachronism type role-play fighting thought Polybius was full of it, and Peter Connolly's experiments laughable. Reckoned that anyone who'd been in the thick of it like he had knew it exactly how a phalanx fought, and you didn't need shields for it, unless perhaps you were in the first rank and there were missile types around...

I suppose it's a lively topic because the evidence is so tenuous. Machiavelli in his book on military theory (not The Prince) affirms the Swiss pike phalanx is exactly the same thing as the classical Macedonian one, even though the Swiss pikemen wielded their pikes overarm. Where did we get the idea that phalangites wielded their pikes underarm? Not from the Pergamon plaque which became known only after 1913.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 14, 2019, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 14, 2019, 11:55:58 AM

I suppose it's a lively topic because the evidence is so tenuous. Machiavelli in his book on military theory (not The Prince) affirms the Swiss pike phalanx is exactly the same thing as the classical Macedonian one, even though the Swiss pikemen wielded their pikes overarm. Where did we get the idea that phalangites wielded their pikes underarm? Not from the Pergamon plaque which became known only after 1913.

We should at this point note that Macchiavelli had even less information on the nature of the Macedonian phalanx than we do.  We should be cautious about using him as an authority on its nature.  Do you have a quote that states that the Swiss used pikes overarm, like the macedonians?  Or are you extrapolating from the fact that generally Macchiavelli held the Swiss used a phalanx like the Greeks, as opposed to the Roman formation?

As to whether Macchiavelli would think of the Swiss using their pikes overarm, I'm not sure.  He wrote in 1519 and his practical experience of watching armies in the field was earlier in the century.  Here are two images of pikemen at Marignano in 1515 from around the time macchiavelli was writing

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c8dde4579fb35c8fb9dcd5/t/590c8b67db29d6fb55d382c7/1493994350148/?format=750w)

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LlP1iZjLd04/WqQCUZc6u0I/AAAAAAAAEc4/AYsemGb23zcp6XQsPPR94ovtK9AXASiNwCLcBGAs/s1600/marignan-rapi%25C3%25A8re-raixe-venete.jpg)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 14, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
So you rule out the artistic evidence because it only depicts the front rank - this seems like goalpost moving - we had been talking about how phalangites held their pikes, now you want to just talk about how second and subsequent rank phalangites held their pikes. But OK - most people have concluded that the fact that the front rank held them underarm, and that no literary source hints that subsequent ranks held them differently, is sufficient to make it most likely that second and subsequent ranks held them underarm too. If you want to insist that only direct evidence of a second (or subsequent) ranker will do, then that's up to you, but the score then would have to be 0:0, wouldn't it?

Quote
shows only the front rank receiving a cavalry charge

How so? The nearest Roman/Gaul/Pergamene/whatever to the right hand phalangite is clearly on foot.

Quote
Connolly says that it works fine underarm at 1 cubit but I notice he includes no photos to prove it. Until I see photos,  0:0

So now you are simply discounting the evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Poor show.

Quote
So the final score is 0:½. Pretty close I'd say.

Very close. You can make it 0:0 if you like - the important point is still the 0 in your column. There is no evidence for your hypothesis.

That just leaves you with your last sentence, which is just an argument from personal incredulity ("I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false").

But whatever, believe what you like.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Andreas Johansson on January 14, 2019, 12:38:11 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 13, 2019, 10:16:29 PM
Regarding Arrian I have Ars Tactica 12 in mind: "Round about they stand back successively so that each hoplite in the front is covered by six sarissas". The word 'covered' in Greek is πεφράχθαι from φράσσω which means 'fence in,' 'hedge round,' conveying the image of the fronk rank phalangite being surrounded by a protective gauntlet of sarissas - from his own file - which is much better conveyed by sarissas held overarm and projecting past his shoulders (on either side), than by a tight bundle of sarissas projecting past him below waist height on his right. Indicative but not conclusive.

You're imagining that different men in the same file hold their sarissai on different sides of the file leader? That seems unnecessarily complicated, since if they all hold it on the same side, he'll still have those of the next file on the other.

I'm not convinced that underarm implies sarissai projecting below waist height - if I were I'd considered that in itself a good argument for overarm - so this seems to me very weakly indicative at best. But thanks for explaining your thinking.

(Speaking of file leaders, Arrian says in the same section that if the file leader falls, the file closer should move forward to take his place. Someone explain to me how that is supposed to work at 18" frontage, in combat!)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 14, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 13, 2019, 10:16:29 PMRegarding Arrian I have Ars Tactica 12 in mind: "Round about they stand back successively so that each hoplite in the front is covered by six sarissas". The word 'covered' in Greek is πεφράχθαι from φράσσω which means 'fence in,' 'hedge round,' conveying the image of the fronk rank phalangite being surrounded by a protective gauntlet of sarissas - from his own file - which is much better conveyed by sarissas held overarm and projecting past his shoulders (on either side), than by a tight bundle of sarissas projecting past him below waist height on his right. Indicative but not conclusive.

I don't think that any notion of hedging "round" is inherent in φράσσω. Several of the examples in LSJ, for instance, are of "fences of shields", or shield-walls, which imply a line of shields to the front. Arrian need imply nothing more than that a hedge of pikes was presented in front of the front-ranker.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 14, 2019, 03:33:13 PM
In this case too, phrasso is (not by coincidence) used in Homer, Iliad 13.130f. "fencing spear with spear, and shield with serried shield; buckler pressed on buckler, helm on helm, and man on man" familiar from being quoted by Polybius 18.29 (and elsewhere).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 14, 2019, 05:21:02 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 14, 2019, 12:33:16 PM
We should at this point note that Macchiavelli had even less information on the nature of the Macedonian phalanx than we do.  We should be cautious about using him as an authority on its nature.  Do you have a quote that states that the Swiss used pikes overarm, like the macedonians?  Or are you extrapolating from the fact that generally Macchiavelli held the Swiss used a phalanx like the Greeks, as opposed to the Roman formation?

As to whether Macchiavelli would think of the Swiss using their pikes overarm, I'm not sure.  He wrote in 1519 and his practical experience of watching armies in the field was earlier in the century.

To put Machiavelli in context, here is the relevant passage from his Art of War (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/machiavelli/works/art-war/ch02.htm), Book 2:

      
For attacking, they had cinched on their left side a sword of an arm and a half length, and a dagger on the right side. They carried a spear, which they called Pilus, and which they hurled at the enemy at the start of a battle. These were the important Roman arms, with which they conquered the world. And although some of the ancient writers also gave them, in addition to the aforementioned arms, a shaft in the hand in the manner of a spit, I do not know how a staff can be used by one who holds a shield, for in managing it with two hands it is impeded by the shield, and he cannot do anything worthwhile with one hand because of its heaviness. In addition to this, to combat in the ranks with the staff (as arms) is useless, except in the front rank where there is ample space to deploy the entire staff, which cannot be done in the inner ranks, because the nature of the battalions ((as I will tell you in their organization)) is to press its ranks continually closer together, as this is feared less, even though inconvenient, than for the ranks to spread further apart, where the danger is most apparent. So that all the arms which exceed two arms in length are useless in tight places; for if you have a staff and want to use it with both hands, and handled so that the shield should not annoy you, you cannot attack an enemy with it who is next to you. If you take it in one hand in order to serve yourself of the shield, you cannot pick it up except in the middle, and there remains so much of the staff in the back part, that those who are behind impede you in using it. And that this is true, that the Romans did not have the staff, or, having it, they valued it little, you will read in all the engagements noted by Titus Livius in his history, where you will see that only very rarely is mention made of the shaft, rather he always says that, after hurling the spears, they put their hands on the sword. Therefore I want to leave this staff, and relate how much the Romans used the sword for offense, and for defense, the shield together with the other arms mentioned above.

The Greeks did not arm so heavily for defense as did the Romans, but in the offense relied more on this staff than on the sword, and especially the Phalanxes of Macedonia, who carried staffs which they called Sarisse, a good ten arms in length, with which they opened the ranks of the enemy and maintained order in the Phalanxes. And although other writers say they also had a shield, I do not know ((for the reasons given above)) how the Sarisse and the shield could exist together. In addition to this, in the engagement that Paulus Emilius had with Perseus, King of Macedonia, I do not remember mention being made of shields, but only of the Sarisse and the difficulty the Romans had in overcoming them. So that I conjecture that a Macedonian Phalanx was nothing else than a battalion of Swiss is today, who have all their strength and power in their pikes.

So, true, he is no authority on the Macedonian phalanx.

After trawling through every contemporary or near-contemporary image I could find of the battles of the Swiss Confederation, it is clear that a) they didn't use shields, wearing plenty of body armour instead, and b) they held their pikes any old how: overarm, underarm and midarm, though they seem to have generally held them underarm to receive cavalry charges and underarm seems to be the preferred grip. Without a shield in the way they were free to wield their pikes as they saw fit.

(https://i.imgur.com/9isEqJK.jpg)

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 14, 2019, 05:36:44 PM
QuoteAfter trawling through every contemporary or near-contemporary image I could find of the battles of the Swiss Confederation, it is clear that a) they didn't use shields, wearing plenty of body armour instead, and b) they held their pikes any old how: overarm, underarm and midarm, though they seem to have generally held them underarm to receive cavalry charges and underarm seems to be the preferred grip. Without a shield in the way they were free to wield their pikes as they saw fit.

Fair comment.  I will stick with what I said when we last discussed this; the use of pikes was not a settled thing and there does seem to be a change in the predominant approach from underarm to overarm in the period 1500-1520.  It is hard to tell, though, how much pictures of pike fights of the time accurately reflect what happened.  Was it as individualistic, using the pike any which way, as it appears?  If so, should we picture what happens in a Hellenistic pike fight in the same way?

Anyway, we are in danger of digression.  Quoting Machiavelli has, however, shown he said nothing about overarm or underarm pike holds and he was wrong about the shields (probably because he had less information on the subject than us).

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 14, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 14, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
So you rule out the artistic evidence because it only depicts the front rank - this seems like goalpost moving - we had been talking about how phalangites held their pikes, now you want to just talk about how second and subsequent rank phalangites held their pikes. But OK - most people have concluded that the fact that the front rank held them underarm, and that no literary source hints that subsequent ranks held them differently, is sufficient to make it most likely that second and subsequent ranks held them underarm too. If you want to insist that only direct evidence of a second (or subsequent) ranker will do, then that's up to you, but the score then would have to be 0:0, wouldn't it?

Actually, right from the start (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3241.0) I had no problem with front rankers presenting pikes underarm because a) they have no difficulty doing so (the shield doesn't get in the way) and - following on Duncan - b) the Pergamon plaque shows them doing just that. The previous thread on the subject proposed a hypothesis where the front rankers present pikes underarm whilst the other ranks present them overarm. That's where I am today.

Quote from: RichT on January 14, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
Quoteshows only the front rank receiving a cavalry charge

How so? The nearest Roman/Gaul/Pergamene/whatever to the right hand phalangite is clearly on foot.

True, I had noticed that, though the cavalry are also charging towards them. But point taken, one can't determine whether they are configured for cavalry or if that is their general combat stance.

Quote from: RichT on January 14, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
QuoteConnolly says that it works fine underarm at 1 cubit but I notice he includes no photos to prove it. Until I see photos,  0:0

So now you are simply discounting the evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Poor show.

Not quite. I'm waiting for evidence to be presented, not just affirmations.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 14, 2019, 07:59:57 PM
I think we should give Justin's idea a fair hearing, and I speak as one who belongs to the underarm school.

My own thinking, such as it is, has some difficulty seing the phalangite get the pike past his own elbow to achieve the overarm grip, but if it can be done, then having ranks 3-5 hold their pikes overarm does have advantages: opponents who somehow get past ranks 1 and 2 now face a series of pike points which can be aimed anywhere from their waists to their faces as opposed to from the chest to the thighs; it discommodes their attempts not to get run through.

As in the absence of a speira of re-enactors we are limited to analysis, I would suggest putting our efforts into analysing the angular and spatial possibilities offered - and those inhibited - by having ranks 3-5 adopt:

a) an underarm hold
b) an overarm hold.

For a) we should consider how five pikeshafts are going to line up tiogether and how they manage to avoid getting in the way of the phalangites' shields.

For b) we need to consider how the evolution from pikes upright to pikes levelled is achieved, and when during the approach (i.e. move to contact) it might be accomplished.

The underarm hold is very much a default position, and while we have th ePergamene example it is unfortunately not a complete phalanx and we do not know quite how representative of the whole it may be.  If we consider spatial possibilities we might come closer to determining which way of holding the sarissa turns out to be easiest to achieve, and whether either is unviable on account of spatial limitations.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 14, 2019, 09:44:25 PM
I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing. Since nothing but photographic evidence will satisfy him (a strange position to take in this field), and since it's apparently not enough for all to agree that his theory is an interesting possibility but without evidence, I don't really know what more can be said.

I'm more interested in Medieval/Renaissance/Early modern pike usage - I think I've asked before but can anyone recommend books dealing with the practicalities of pike use in this period, or any primary texts - I know about Sir John Smythe and Monluc, I've read the Marquis of Winchester's Regiment article - what else is out there? I've got several 17th C English drill manuals but they don't give much detail on combat pike use.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 15, 2019, 04:29:23 AM
Fine then, we can wrap it up. Just one last thing though. Taking a second (or a ninth or tenth) look at the Pergamon plaque, notice that a couple of phalangites are fallen in the foreground, and that the Roman legionary on the left has managed to get up close and personal with the surviving phalangites despite their levelled pikes. This scene IIRC represents the Attalid cavalry at Magnesia riding to the rescue of Roman infantry engaging the phalanx, and overcoming all before them. It's a piece of propaganda on a belt buckle, not an historical dissertation. Hence those standing phalangites may not be in phalanx formation at all, just the survivors making a desperate stand against the Romans and Attalids. The artist then is not trying to convey anything about how a phalanx was formed up.

QuoteSince nothing but photographic evidence will satisfy him (a strange position to take in this field)

Not a strange position but a reasonable one. Connolly says: "Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the standard two cubit formation, with pikes in the upright position, the right hand file turned about, marched towards the rear, wheeled and came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving that it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man."

Remarks: if the right hand file countermarched and then inserted itself between the other two files, the shields of all three files would have to have been at the volunteers' sides since Connolly's shields are more than two feet wide (as is clear from the photos). The volunteers then lowered their pikes without having to project them either over or under their shields. Connolly makes no mention of the volunteers bringing their shields in front of them before lowering their pikes.

So I conclude that this proves nothing about pikes projecting past shields unless I can actually see photos showing if and how it was done.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 15, 2019, 07:42:25 AM
Just to remind you Justin, simply finding an image labelled Swiss does not suffice, for your internet searches.

Previously you have put up modern photographs of 30 years war re-enactments as supporting evidence for late medieval and early Italian wars Kiel's.  Which is preposterous.

Your latest example also needs a context.  To my untrained eye it looks like circa Burgundian was, when the Swiss still used polearms alone.  Even if it is later than Nancy when the pike first became used, it still only shows single men, who could just as easily be flag guards hanging around the camp, as a battle array.

And that assumes the artist was being representative of the time he saw...

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 09:10:09 AM
QuoteTo my untrained eye it looks like circa Burgundian was, when the Swiss still used polearms alone.

It's from Schilling the Younger's Lucerne Chronicle and shows the Battle of Grandson.  Though having a Burgundian Wars subject, it is said to date from 1513.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Luzerner_Schilling_Battle_of_Grandson.jpg)

We should note it shows infantry in action against archers and, compositionally, the Swiss are moving downhill, so the pikemen thrusting overarm are either engaging men below them or on the ground.  This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

That said, look at the more coherent melee on the right of the picture - this isn't a fight between dressed ranks either.  Artistically, there is a tendency to show formations in serried ranks before contact but a more confused situation afterwards.

Anyone wanting to get to grips with the conventions of Swiss chronicle illustrations can do worse than start with Wikimedia's collection here  (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_illustrated_chronicles)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 15, 2019, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 14, 2019, 09:44:25 PM
I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing.

Quantity is not the same as quality.  Far too much of these 15 pages has amounted to decanted scorn and a priori dismissal.

It would seem we lack evidence for whether they did.  Discussion thus centres on whether they could have, and this of necessity draws on representations of other generations of pike users and on the tangential experiences of re-enactors, plus an element of thought, or what should be thought.

Quote from: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 09:10:09 AM
This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

Interesting, and a constructive observation (thank you, Anthony).  So in the era of the Swiss it could be done, but seemingly was done only in certain circumstances.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how Hellenistic-era pikemen might hold their pikes to engage opponents on a slope below them, e.g. at Sellasia in 222 BC?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 15, 2019, 10:03:14 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 15, 2019, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 14, 2019, 09:44:25 PM
I don't think, with twelve pages last time and another three already this, anyone can say Justin's theory hasn't been given a fair hearing.

Quantity is not the same as quality.  Far too much of these 15 pages has amounted to decanted scorn and a priori dismissal.

It would seem we lack evidence for whether they did.  Discussion thus centres on whether they could have, and this of necessity draws on representations of other generations of pike users and on the tangential experiences of re-enactors, plus an element of thought, or what should be thought.

Quote from: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 09:10:09 AM
This is typical of the use of the overarm grip in medieval art - thrusting at a target below you.

Interesting, and a constructive observation (thank you, Anthony).  So in the era of the Swiss it could be done, but seemingly was done only in certain circumstances.  Does anyone have any thoughts on how Hellenistic-era pikemen might hold their pikes to engage opponents on a slope below them, e.g. at Sellasia in 222 BC?

Characterising the scepticism as decanted scorn is not fair. We've been through this material before and there are fundamental disagreements and blindspots. The passage in Polybius makes it clear that the phalanx lowers its sarissae when going into battle, and that the rear ranks slanted their pikes over the heads of the front ranks to protect them from missiles. This must be an underhand grip. An overhand [edit: overarm] grip does not work in these circumstances.

There is dismissal of the argument because, frankly, neither the way the argument is framed, the arguments themselves nor the biomechanical explanations presented are convincing, yet experience tells us that no amount of persuasion will convince the proposer of said argument that the argument is faulty. So we are at an impasse.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 10:09:11 AM
A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 10:13:59 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 10:09:11 AM
A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?

I do, yes. Wasn't it called the pole-vaulter's grip?

Cheers
Mick
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 10:23:28 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 10:13:59 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 10:09:11 AM
A long, long time ago in Slingshot, someone, and I think it may have been Phil Steele though I could be completely misremembering, suggested that the sarisa was held with the right (rearmost) hand in an underarm grip, but the left (foremost) hand in an overhand grip. I think the idea was that it changed the angle of the arm slightly and brought the shield round more squarely in front. Does anyone else remember this?

I do, yes. Wasn't it called the pole-vaulter's grip?

Yes, I think that's it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees. the right hand is free to reach for and draw the sword.
Amazingly these farm boys with a few weeks training are able to use the pike levelled for combat with infantry and grounded against cavalry.
given that most Hellenistic cavalry were well trained isn't it likely that they used all the sensible positions of the pike and that there were sensible commands for these positions. If the question is how did the Greeks pose the pike when attacking other infantry i'd be inclined to go with whichever way gave the best protection from the shield as i doubt that they were about to commit mutual slaughter by running in mutually to the approaching pike points.
I suppose that the other consideration is comfort. , holding even a two foot diameter shield with one hand, as well as the pike, is going to get very wearing. So in which position is the shield best supported?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 10:58:23 AM
Quote from: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.

Lucian mentions the butt of the sarissa being grounded in his (fictional?) anecdote about a Thracian with a sarissa fighting a Mede cavalryman with a 30-foot lance.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 15, 2019, 12:21:52 PM
I wonder whether we are at the same point as was reached during the longbow debate (not coincidentally featuring the same key proponents), when it took us a while to grasp that Justin takes a literal view of the weapon naming.

Anything called a longbow was the same, in his eyes.  And here, anything called a pike must also be the same.

Once you understand that this is (I suspect) Justin's starting positions, his argument begins to make more sense, and the means to explain to him why he is mistaken presents itself.

Does anyone happen to have to hand the estimates for pike lengths at various points in history?
Successor pikes and 30YW pikes seem the most significant initially.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 15, 2019, 12:54:47 PM
What Aaron said, and also to add that I for one am sick of being trolled.

Concerning sarissas - bear in mind that not every sarissa is necessarily a pike (cf Strabo's throwable sarissa), and not every use of a sarissa (eg by Thracians) is a Macedonian phalanx. 'Sarissa' seems to be a dialect word for various spears (as well as being used by Macedonians for their pike).

I remember Phil Steele's pole vaulter suggestion - seems very plausible, though it wouldn't make very much difference in this case (the pole vaulter grip still gives a low hold, with the sarissa somewhere in the lower right quarter of the shield, or maybe at the 3 o'clock position (in fact, that might help, though it's not what the Pergamon plaque suggests)).

I'm not so sure about the mutual impaling aspect in Roy's post - IIRC early modern pikers found that there wasn't much penetration of buff coats etc. It is hard to imagine, but somehow pike combat seems to have fairly low lethality, even without shields, so a solid shield wall doesn't seem essential (which is why many people favour angled shields).

Am I right in thinking that the overarm grip only developed in the 16th C? It is interesting if so that pikemen (unshielded) went several centuries without it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees.

Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees.

Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).

Not if the human is sitting on a horse.

Cheers
Mick

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 12:54:47 PMConcerning sarissas - bear in mind that not every sarissa is necessarily a pike (cf Strabo's throwable sarissa), and not every use of a sarissa (eg by Thracians) is a Macedonian phalanx. 'Sarissa' seems to be a dialect word for various spears (as well as being used by Macedonians for their pike).

See for example Noguera Borel's article (https://www.museoliber.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/L%C3%A9volution-de-la-phalange-macedonienne-le-cas-de-la-sarisse.pdf) (in French), bringing up among other things the grammarian Aelius Herodianus' entries for sarisa as "a small javelin", "a large javelin", and even "an arrow". He concludes sarisa means "any shafted weapon".

I lean rather towards the view that maybe Aelius Herodianus doesn't know what he's talking about...
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 15, 2019, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 15, 2019, 01:26:50 PM

See for example Noguera Borel's article (https://www.museoliber.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/L%C3%A9volution-de-la-phalange-macedonienne-le-cas-de-la-sarisse.pdf) (in French), bringing up among other things the grammarian Aelius Herodianus' entries for sarisa as "a small javelin", "a large javelin", and even "an arrow". He concludes sarisa means "any shafted weapon".

I lean rather towards the view that maybe Aelius Herodianus doesn't know what he's talking about...

:) yes I expect you are right! But there are non-phalanx uses of sarissa that make sense if it means 'spear (long, probably), rather than 'pike (5-7 metres)' - eg the banquet guard at the killing of Cleitus, the Aitolians with their gas bombs etc.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 15, 2019, 04:05:39 PM
I'd like to carry on with the discussion as it is interesting and several points have been raised that I haven't considered before, and I've had to change my mind on a couple of other points (yes! true!).*

To make it clear, I have no problem being proven wrong, and I would much rather be proven wrong than not be proven wrong and be wrong. So saying that "experience tells us that no amount of persuasion will convince the proposer of said argument that the argument is faulty" is a bit of a reach IMHO. The proposer is listening.  :)

My problem with the Macedonian/Successor phalanx (just to be clear - the phalanx that used sarissas understood as those long pole things with spearheads on the end that you don't throw but poke at people) is that with an underarm grip I can't get it to work. The phalanx deployed in close order, files 45cm wide. The phalangites had shields 60cm or more wide. Those shields - like hoplite shields - were meant to protect the phalangites, so, yes, they held them across the front of their bodies and they overlapped each other, just like the shields of the Macedonian phalanx's direct ancestor. Aemilius was impressed by the "strength of their shields-together", heck, it was "shields together". To say otherwise is to force the text. I don't mind doubting a source but not just because it contradicts a favourite theory. The sarissas then if held underarm have to fit under the shields, which means they will be far too low. They'll point slightly downwards and since sarissa shafts tend to bend, the downwards angle will be accentuated. They will stick in slightest terrain obstacle or gentle slope and stop the phalanx dead in its tracks.

If anyone can tell what I'm missing I'd be delighted.

Re the polevault grip, I've tried it with a broomstick and it works fine. You can hold a pike vertically, tilt it to 45 degrees, and lower it facing forwards in an overarm hold, all without changing your grip. "Lowering": bring a pike from a vertical position to an overarm horizontal position and it is lower by a good few feet.


*the phalangites in the Pergamon plaque are necessarily in an anti-cavalry stance; Machiavelli is worth quoting; φράσσω necessarily has the connotation of 'around'
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 04:28:45 PM
QuoteAm I right in thinking that the overarm grip only developed in the 16th C? It is interesting if so that pikemen (unshielded) went several centuries without it.

The classic Dutch drill overarm pike stance (Charge your pike in ECW drill) seems later 16th century.  Its ancestry is medieval though.  I have been taking the opportunity to consider this as a serendipitous exercise.  Take for example this image from a 1409 copy of the Flos Duellatorum (Pisani Dossi MS)

(https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/d/dc/Pisani-Dossi_MS_16a.jpg/800px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_16a.jpg)
The student is clearly using the same basic stance, with the hands in the same position.

It wasn't the only high lance position

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Cod.1324_28r.jpg)

And this well known Dolstein image, from the early 16th century.

(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/J8FX02/german-mercenary-engineer-paul-dolnsteins-drawing-of-a-swedish-peasant-J8FX02.jpg)

My working hypothesis is that, with pike warfare in formation developing , various known high stances were tried and eventually the most suitable for drill purposes became standardised. 

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 04:42:27 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees.

Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).

You are actually aiming at much less than 45 degrees.  Take a protractor to deGheyn's drill illustrations and you get get a 25 degree angle for the pike.  Somebody good at trig can work out the height of the tip if the pike is 18 ft long.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 15, 2019, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 15, 2019, 04:42:27 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 15, 2019, 10:46:32 AM
Seventeenth century manuals show pike receiving cavalry with the pike grounded in front of the right foot, the left leg forward and bent.  The pike is held by the left hand with an underarm grip and is at an angle of 35-45 degrees.

Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).

You are actually aiming at much less than 45 degrees.  Take a protractor to deGheyn's drill illustrations and you get get a 25 degree angle for the pike.  Somebody good at trig can work out the height of the tip if the pike is 18 ft long.

7' 8"
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 15, 2019, 05:58:49 PM
Perhaps someone better at physics could work out the strength needed to wield that thing with your bad hand while holding a sword in your right...

I'm pretty sure by the 30YW pikes we're down to 12feet which is a hell of a lot less than 18 feet from the Macedonian days, and offers quite distinct options not previously available.

Consider also, the different army deployment from a successor army with pikemen forming a largely straight line across 2/3rds of the army, and the Swiss with 3 entirely independent Kiel's running z(rinning)at the enemy
'Not the same thing at all

Never mind mixed pike and shot units from later
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 15, 2019, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 15, 2019, 04:05:39 PM
I'd like to carry on with the discussion as it is interesting and several points have been raised that I haven't considered before...

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly (my Slingshots are in storage, so I may be) Richard has had thoughtful and deeply and conscientiously considered material published in our own house journal on the matter of how the phalanx operated, including discussion of the evidence around intervals.

Justin wrote:
My problem with the Macedonian/Successor phalanx (just to be clear - the phalanx that used sarissas understood as those long pole things with spearheads on the end that you don't throw but poke at people) is that with an underarm grip I can't get it to work. The phalanx deployed in close order, files 45cm wide. The phalangites had shields 60cm or more wide. Those shields - like hoplite shields - were meant to protect the phalangites, so, yes, they held them across the front of their bodies and they overlapped each other, just like the shields of the Macedonian phalanx's direct ancestor. Aemilius was impressed by the "strength of their shields-together", heck, it was "shields together". To say otherwise is to force the text. I don't mind doubting a source but not just because it contradicts a favourite theory. The sarissas then if held underarm have to fit under the shields, which means they will be far too low. They'll point slightly downwards and since sarissa shafts tend to bend, the downwards angle will be accentuated. They will stick in slightest terrain obstacle or gentle slope and stop the phalanx dead in its tracks.

If anyone can tell what I'm missing I'd be delighted.


And all of this is where you are wrong. You require source fidelity when it suits you, but ignore that requirement when it doesn't. How can you compare the Renaissance version of the phalanx with the Classical version without considering butt spike counterweights, as just one example? How can you ignore Polybius in one instance and then use him as evidence in another?

Basically, at this stage, the theory is a non starter.



Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 15, 2019, 07:29:13 PM
Quote from: Prufrock on January 15, 2019, 06:06:16 PM
How can you compare the Renaissance version of the phalanx with the Classical version without considering butt spike counterweights, as just one example?

By following the lead of other Society members. :)

Obviously the different construction of the Macedonian pike needs to be considered.  But we might as well examine the subject from all angles, including Phil Steele's proposed grip, and see if anything emerges.

And if one has direct or indirect evidence against the use of an overarm grip by Macedonians, that too would be a useful contribution.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 15, 2019, 07:51:25 PM
The underhand/overhand argument here seems to be unrelated the infamous argument in hoplites.  Here you seem to be concerned solely with the height of the strike- at the shoulder or at the waist.  In this you are really arguing whether sarissaphoroi had to use the shoulder strap to support the left hand. If not, then the question is somewhat frivolous because a man could easily do either by simply raising or lowering the left hand.  If the argument is about hand placement- hand OVER the shaft vs hand UNDER the shaft- then again there is not much to argue because as you can see below men can hold either high or low with either.

The real difference is in where the pelta is relative to the spear shaft.  In hand-over-shaft, the pelta is to the right of the shaft, while in Hand under shaft the pelta is to the left as is usually depicted, and the arm may be supported by the shoulder strap.

Now, I see no reason to think the current depiction is incorrect, but someone brought up the Pergamum bronze which is our only example of what might be sarissaphoroi (though there spears are no longer than dorys and their pelta as big as aspides).  This depiction clearly shows the shields to the right of the shaft which is completely consistent with what is being proposed and evidence against the current depictions.  That said, I think this is probably simple artistic license, but it is no clear support for the standard view.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 15, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
Aaron mentions Richard (by whom I'm presuming he means Rïchard Nelson) and that does raise an interesting point. Richard wrote an article on Sellasia in Slingshot 42 where he takes the position that Antigonus fought the Spartans in intermediate and then close order, compacting his phalanx after the initial attack against the Spartans ended in a draw:

      
A recall was sounded on the bugle for the light-armed troops of both sides, who were on the ground between the two armies: and the phalanxes shouting their war cries, and with spears couched, charged each other. Then a fierce struggle arose: the Macedonians sometimes slowly giving ground and yielding to the superior courage of the soldiers of Sparta, and at another time the Lacedaemonians being forced to give way before the overpowering weight of the Macedonian phalanx. At length Antigonus ordered a charge in close order and in double phalanx; the enormous weight of this peculiar formation proved sufficient to finally dislodge the Lacedaemonians from their strongholds, and they fled in disorder and suffering severely as they went. - Histories: 2.69

In intermediate order there is up to a foot of space between the shields of adjacent files, which leaves plenty of room for sarissas to be presented underarm (as reenactors demonstrate). Close order with sunaspismos was not the only battle formation of a phalanx nor even the default one, but may, as the passage from Polybios suggests, have been reserved only for times of special need such as Sellasia or Pydna.

One can argue then that the Pergamon plaque shows phalangites in intermediate order (Antiochus may have felt he had a sure win and used the default arrangement) and in this order the phalangites would have used their pikes as they saw fit.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 15, 2019, 09:32:37 PM
Paul - I think your first diagram (pergy_grip.png) doesn't quite make sense, since the shield can't be to the right of the shaft (as it is, it's true, depicted in the PP) - this would require that the man's hand be on the left edge of his shield, and I can't work out any way of holding a shield on the left arm that would result in this. Have you tried it/do you have further clarification of how it could work?

It's true that a low hold can be turned into a high hold just by raising the arms - but then a shield on the left arm would cover the bearer's face, and expose his vitals, wouldn't it? Which seems suboptimal from a combat point of view.

The high holds that Anthony's pictures depict are interesting, though the spears are very short - is that an artistic thing too?

"the shoulder strap" - for which there's no evidence
"the pelta" - why pelta?
"as big as aspides" - what's wrong with that?
"spears are no longer than dorys" - depictions of sarissas to correct scale length are, for obvious reasons, rare. The front wall figures of Agios Athanasios are the nearest I can think of, and they are only c. 3.5 m
:) Just muddying the waters here, please just ignore all these matters - can of worms country.

Justin - nobody is going to be able to prove you wrong to your satisfaction, not least because you set an impossibly high standard of proof. That does not however mean you are right. Can you understand that?

[Edit] Incidentally this clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kQwMbJpBTs - is, though maddeningly badly filmed, quite interesting. At around 1:44 the ranks are shown each holding their sarissa slightly higher, still underarm (well, for the guy in the mask helmet, it's borderline if this is low hold or high hold). I think this reconstruction looks quite convincing (aside from the little dude in the front rank, but maybe he's very brave). Who's convinced it might have worked this way? I just wish the History channel would provide this sort of funding for some proper research.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 15, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 09:32:37 PM
Paul - I think your first diagram (pergy_grip.png) doesn't quite make sense, since the shield can't be to the right of the shaft (as it is, it's true, depicted in the PP) - this would require that the man's hand be on the left edge of his shield, and I can't work out any way of holding a shield on the left arm that would result in this. Have you tried it/do you have further clarification of how it could work?

It's true that a low hold can be turned into a high hold just by raising the arms - but then a shield on the left arm would cover the bearer's face, and expose his vitals, wouldn't it? Which seems suboptimal from a combat point of view.

The high holds that Anthony's pictures depict are interesting, though the spears are very short - is that an artistic thing too?

"the shoulder strap" - for which there's no evidence
"the pelta" - why pelta?
"as big as aspides" - what's wrong with that?
"spears are no longer than dorys" - depictions of sarissas to correct scale length are, for obvious reasons, rare. The front wall figures of Agios Athanasios are the nearest I can think of, and they are only c. 3.5 m
:) Just muddying the waters here, please just ignore all these matters - can of worms country.

The hold I depicted is in fact the way Marozzo (some interpretations), the renaissance master, tells us to hold the partisan in two hands.  Watch from about minute 20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGX0LWcFyKQ

It can only be done with a small, pelta, that is "not too deep".  You cannot hold a sarissa with a classical Greek aspis, I have tried, and the rim is in the way.  The only way it can be done is in the fashion Marozzo describes, but the shield is too big to make it work in anything but a static pose.

If we discount the strap, and that reading of Polybios, then there really is no argument, because surely sarissaphoroi did anything they wanted.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 15, 2019, 11:02:34 PM
That's interesting - the left hand of the two red shirted men at minute 20 still has his shield to the left of the shaft (and shaft angled down, so not a viable pike pose). The right hand man's pose though is much more like the Perg plaque - I've not seen that before. That could be a pike pose (at 20:25 he holds the pose nicely). Though of course the Perg plaque shields are neither small nor 'not too deep', unless that's just due to artistic limitations as well (could be - some Greek artists struggle with depictions of round shields in angled views, as can be seen from some hoplite shield depictions).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 16, 2019, 12:47:57 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).
Not if the human is sitting on a horse.

Very droll.  :)
But a 18 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the pointy end 12.7ft up in the air. I'm guessing higher than most horses.  :)
Even a 12 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the business end 8.5ft up in the air.

More seriously, if you are going to ground a pike that is 12ft long, to keep the pointy end at 5ft up you'll have to hold it at 25 degrees, at 18ft long its 16 degrees. Assuming you can reach forward 3ft, your knuckles will be about 10 inches off the ground. Not comfortable.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 16, 2019, 01:39:11 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 09:32:37 PM
Incidentally this clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kQwMbJpBTs - is, though maddeningly badly filmed, quite interesting. At around 1:44 the ranks are shown each holding their sarissa slightly higher, still underarm (well, for the guy in the mask helmet, it's borderline if this is low hold or high hold). I think this reconstruction looks quite convincing (aside from the little dude in the front rank, but maybe he's very brave). Who's convinced it might have worked this way? I just wish the History channel would provide this sort of funding for some proper research.

This part? They appear to have widened to files to an irregular open order and put all the short people in front.

(https://i.imgur.com/a891QNA.jpg)

It's clearer here:

(https://i.imgur.com/X2TIBwx.jpg)

There's a short clip (https://youtu.be/8kQwMbJpBTs?t=87) in the video (the clip is a CG animation) where the phalangites are in closeish order and the pikes are presented over the shields. Looks convincing to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/nVtRfoS.jpg)

Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 09:32:37 PMJustin - nobody is going to be able to prove you wrong to your satisfaction, not least because you set an impossibly high standard of proof. That does not however mean you are right. Can you understand that?

Personally, I would prefer just examining the arguments for and against and seeing where they lead. I think we can all understand the difference between definitive, probable and possible proof.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 16, 2019, 02:33:34 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 11:02:34 PM
That's interesting - the left hand of the two red shirted men at minute 20 still has his shield to the left of the shaft (and shaft angled down, so not a viable pike pose). The right hand man's pose though is much more like the Perg plaque - I've not seen that before. That could be a pike pose (at 20:25 he holds the pose nicely). Though of course the Perg plaque shields are neither small nor 'not too deep', unless that's just due to artistic limitations as well (could be - some Greek artists struggle with depictions of round shields in angled views, as can be seen from some hoplite shield depictions).

I am agnostic on what exactly the artist was showing on the Pergamum plaque.  Maybe he did not really understand what a pike phalanx looked like and so just created something that looked a bit like hoplites rather than true pikeman?  Maybe they were hoplites? Maybe he did not want to cross the ornate shield face with the shaft of the sarissa? and maybe they held the sarissa as in the video I posted, but the shields are just too big on the plaque. Many, many maybes.  What is somewhat amazing is that we only have one image that is possibly sarissaphoroi from the century+ we are told they dominated.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 16, 2019, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 16, 2019, 02:33:34 AM
What is somewhat amazing is that we only have one image that is possibly sarissaphoroi from the century+ we are told they dominated.

Indeed!

Archaeology > Literary History? Discuss.  :)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 16, 2019, 06:03:45 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 16, 2019, 02:33:34 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 15, 2019, 11:02:34 PM
That's interesting - the left hand of the two red shirted men at minute 20 still has his shield to the left of the shaft (and shaft angled down, so not a viable pike pose). The right hand man's pose though is much more like the Perg plaque - I've not seen that before. That could be a pike pose (at 20:25 he holds the pose nicely). Though of course the Perg plaque shields are neither small nor 'not too deep', unless that's just due to artistic limitations as well (could be - some Greek artists struggle with depictions of round shields in angled views, as can be seen from some hoplite shield depictions).

I am agnostic on what exactly the artist was showing on the Pergamum plaque.  Maybe he did not really understand what a pike phalanx looked like and so just created something that looked a bit like hoplites rather than true pikeman?  Maybe they were hoplites? Maybe he did not want to cross the ornate shield face with the shaft of the sarissa? and maybe they held the sarissa as in the video I posted, but the shields are just too big on the plaque. Many, many maybes.  What is somewhat amazing is that we only have one image that is possibly sarissaphoroi from the century+ we are told they dominated.

Taking yet another look at the plaque, there's actually no indication the phalangites are holding their spears/pikes/sarissas/long pointy sticks with two hands. One would expect to see the left hand projecting beyond the rim of the shield and holding the shaft if this was meant to be a forensic illustration of pikemen.

Of course there's no definitive indication they aren't holding the shafts two-handed either.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 16, 2019, 07:29:09 AM
Well I am amazed.

I had assumed Justin would only accept video, but he even dismissed that out of hand when it disagrees with his view.

It is also the first time I can recall him ever dismissing a written source more than 1000 years old.

So I guess that just leaves computer generated images as the only evidence Justin will accept. 

It's all become even more pointless than usual, at 5 pages.  Usually it takes to seven
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 16, 2019, 08:00:06 AM
Paul - Pergamon plaque - yes it's a problem image in many ways isn't it. Yet as you say, in three centuries of phalanx warfare, this is pretty much all there is - not that surprising - taking away the Chigi vase, how many depictions of hoplite phalanx warfare are there? Without vase painting, how many depictions of hoplites? The Hellenistic world was without vase painting, 99% of painted and decorative art is lost, and sculptural art has a tradition of depicting intertwined bodies or individuals, not mass formations. So the PP is all we have - it would be good to incorporate it into whatever model we have of phalanx warfare, but it isn't a precise and detailed source of perfect information either (to say the least).

One more question - you said:

Quote
You cannot hold a sarissa with a classical Greek aspis, I have tried, and the rim is in the way.

Were you holding the shield by a porpax, or by an ochane (however you might interpret that)?

Justin - do you really think you are the only one who prefers "examining the arguments for and against and seeing where they lead"? What do you imagine the rest of us are doing, and in some cases have been doing for several decades?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 16, 2019, 08:10:56 AM
Mark, if you have some actual evidence or logic to submit, please do so, otherwise I would ask that you refrain from this kind of comment.

It is hard to know what to make of the Pergamene bronze.  To begin with, cavalry using xyston and large shield appear to be charging pikemen - if these are indeed pikemen - frontally,  in conjunction with figures which bear sword and thureos and might be Romans or Gauls.  Is the Pergamene artist depicting Pergamene cavalry assailing Seleucid pikes or Seleucid cavalry assailing the Macedonian camp guard, or what?  The important question is whether we can derive any meaningful conclusions from this unusual piece of work.

Justin actually gave us two tangible criteria why the underarm hold might be considered suspect - indeed, these drove him to seek out the possibility of an overarm hold in the first place.  These are (Justin, please correct me if I have misunderstood):
1) The shield is in the way.
2) A sarissa (meaning a Macedonian pike) held underarm would have a drooping point, which would get caught up on or in terrain.

Deal with these objections and the need for an overarm grip vanishes.

Quote from: RichT on January 16, 2019, 08:00:06 AM
Justin - do you really think you are the only one who prefers "examining the arguments for and against and seeing where they lead"? What do you imagine the rest of us are doing, and in some cases have been doing for several decades?

Politeness forbids response. ;D  Seriously, no need to get uppity about it.  If existing members are deterred from pursuing lines of thought, new members are not going to discuss ideas here for fear of ridicule.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 16, 2019, 08:22:57 AM
Mark's comment is entirely reasonable. It has the support of the entire forum (I imagine), less two. There are two problem posters on this forum - Justin Swanton and Patrick Waterson. We all know this. Generally, we are polite and pleasant enough to hedge and fudge around it, but sometimes such politeness may be counterproductive, and after being called 'uppity' I'm disinclined to continue the charade. Get uppity about that. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 16, 2019, 08:25:25 AM
Page five is usually where Patrick takes over, as previous threads can attest, so that is not a surprise eitger
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 16, 2019, 08:30:53 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Peace, brothers! It's going to get really difficult to continue with the discussion if we don't get off the personal approach. Can we keep this objective?

Quotedo you really think you are the only one who prefers "examining the arguments for and against and seeing where they lead"? What do you imagine the rest of us are doing, and in some cases have been doing for several decades?

Obviously I don't think this. My point is that rather than being told I can't be proven wrong to my satisfaction (I can - remember the kneeling hoplite mercenaries?) and that I set an impossibly high standard of proof (I don't) I would prefer that we stick to the topic. You have been doing this much longer than me, so please bring in the sources. I'm listening.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mick Hession on January 16, 2019, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: Dangun on January 16, 2019, 12:47:57 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).
Not if the human is sitting on a horse.

Very droll.  :)
But a 18 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the pointy end 12.7ft up in the air. I'm guessing higher than most horses.  :)
Even a 12 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the business end 8.5ft up in the air.

More seriously, if you are going to ground a pike that is 12ft long, to keep the pointy end at 5ft up you'll have to hold it at 25 degrees, at 18ft long its 16 degrees. Assuming you can reach forward 3ft, your knuckles will be about 10 inches off the ground. Not comfortable.

All true, but that presumes that the plan is to impale the cavalry as they crash into impact rather than to present a front that makes them pull up, which evokes another recent thread in which we all reached consensus.   ::)
Cheers
Mick   
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 16, 2019, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on January 16, 2019, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: Dangun on January 16, 2019, 12:47:57 AM
Quote from: Mick Hession on January 15, 2019, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 15, 2019, 12:59:23 PM
Geometrically that sounds very odd...
At 45degrees and grounded, a 2.6m long pike would have raised its pointy end to above the height of most human opponents (1.8m).
Not if the human is sitting on a horse.

Very droll.  :)
But a 18 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the pointy end 12.7ft up in the air. I'm guessing higher than most horses.  :)
Even a 12 foot pike held at 45 degrees would have the business end 8.5ft up in the air.

More seriously, if you are going to ground a pike that is 12ft long, to keep the pointy end at 5ft up you'll have to hold it at 25 degrees, at 18ft long its 16 degrees. Assuming you can reach forward 3ft, your knuckles will be about 10 inches off the ground. Not comfortable.

All true, but that presumes that the plan is to impale the cavalry as they crash into impact rather than to present a front that makes them pull up, which evokes another recent thread in which we all reached consensus.   ::)
Cheers
Mick

We all reached consensus? Where? Lemme see!
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 16, 2019, 09:32:32 AM
QuoteThe high holds that Anthony's pictures depict are interesting, though the spears are very short - is that an artistic thing too?

It's probably artistic.  Note the second version labels the weapon as Lanza Longa

This roughly contemporary image shows the weapon in more realistic proportion

(https://legaitalica1454.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/hesperis-arsenal-folio-112-recto-combattimento-dettaglio-lanze-longhe.jpg?w=1200)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 16, 2019, 09:47:21 AM
QuoteMore seriously, if you are going to ground a pike that is 12ft long, to keep the pointy end at 5ft up you'll have to hold it at 25 degrees, at 18ft long its 16 degrees. Assuming you can reach forward 3ft, your knuckles will be about 10 inches off the ground. Not comfortable.

This is a bit of a diversion but the formation uses the first rank in "charge to horse" and the next few ranks at "charge".  So you have the range 5ft-7ft covered.  The man at "charge to horse" has only one hand on his pike - he expects to drop it on impact - and one on his sword hilt, to enable him to fight with it against the halted and/or unhorsed cavalry if push comes to shove.  And yes, it is uncomfortable to hold for any length of time.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 16, 2019, 10:01:57 AM
Quote2) A sarissa (meaning a Macedonian pike) held underarm would have a drooping point, which would get caught up on or in terrain.

This keeps being mentioned but I dont really understand the issue.  Why do you think the pikeman was only able to carry his pike horizontal rather than at an angle?  Also, how low do you think he will be carrying his pike?By his knees?  Waist high?  If this is a key sticking point, a little more explanation of your visualisation of the mechanics might lead us to a solution.





Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 16, 2019, 12:31:45 PM
OK, peace and objectivity it is.

Quote
Obviously I don't think this. My point is that rather than being told I can't be proven wrong to my satisfaction (I can - remember the kneeling hoplite mercenaries?) and that I set an impossibly high standard of proof (I don't) I would prefer that we stick to the topic. You have been doing this much longer than me, so please bring in the sources. I'm listening.

I and others in this thread and its predecessor have brought in all the sources there are. That's the lot, there ain't no more. If you don't find that evidence good enough to prove one position or another, then good - you have reached the same conclusion as I have - and coincidentally the correct one. :)

We don't know for sure how Macedonian phalangites held their pikes. Such evidence as there is, taken together, is enough to make most people think that the traditional picture of a low hold is the correct one, but it's not proof. It's possible that they used a high hold - as later pikemen did - but there's no evidence that they did so. We can't prove they did, we can't prove they didn't. Taken together, because there isn't any evidence that they did, most people think they didn't.

Now you want us to disprove your high hold theory. We can't. All we can do (and have done, over twelve pages last time, six so far this time) is point out that there is no evidence that they did, and some evidence they did the other thing.

Then further, you think the high hold is a logical necessity because the low hold is impossible for various practical reasons. Now first of all, the burden of proof is firmly on you to prove that the low hold is impossible - and proof has to involve something more than you just being unable to imagine it. I can imagine it. Lots of people can imagine it. Peter Connolly imagined it, equipped a pike formation with appropriate kit, and implemented it for real. The fact you can't imagine it is neither here nor there. What do you want from us - to help you imagine it? We've brought in various testimony (Pergamon plaque, Connolly's experiment, YouTube videos) but you discount all of them. So I think we've done all we can. You can't imagine the low hold. OK. It doesn't mean the low hold wasn't real (since the set of things that are real and the set of things you can imagine are not the same).

You could advance the discussion materially by repeating Connolly's experiment and proving that it is in fact impossible to use the low hold (note that proving something is impossible requires doing your absolute best to prove that it is possible).

Now I think this aspect of the discusison has more than run its course but there is still good stuff here on Swiss pikes and shield holds and such like so could we clear the stage for them, or else pack it in?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 16, 2019, 03:50:46 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 16, 2019, 12:31:45 PM
OK, peace and objectivity it is.

Quote
Obviously I don't think this. My point is that rather than being told I can't be proven wrong to my satisfaction (I can - remember the kneeling hoplite mercenaries?) and that I set an impossibly high standard of proof (I don't) I would prefer that we stick to the topic. You have been doing this much longer than me, so please bring in the sources. I'm listening.

I and others in this thread and its predecessor have brought in all the sources there are. That's the lot, there ain't no more. If you don't find that evidence good enough to prove one position or another, then good - you have reached the same conclusion as I have - and coincidentally the correct one. :)

We don't know for sure how Macedonian phalangites held their pikes. Such evidence as there is, taken together, is enough to make most people think that the traditional picture of a low hold is the correct one, but it's not proof. It's possible that they used a high hold - as later pikemen did - but there's no evidence that they did so. We can't prove they did, we can't prove they didn't. Taken together, because there isn't any evidence that they did, most people think they didn't.

Now you want us to disprove your high hold theory. We can't. All we can do (and have done, over twelve pages last time, six so far this time) is point out that there is no evidence that they did, and some evidence they did the other thing.

Then further, you think the high hold is a logical necessity because the low hold is impossible for various practical reasons. Now first of all, the burden of proof is firmly on you to prove that the low hold is impossible - and proof has to involve something more than you just being unable to imagine it. I can imagine it. Lots of people can imagine it. Peter Connolly imagined it, equipped a pike formation with appropriate kit, and implemented it for real. The fact you can't imagine it is neither here nor there. What do you want from us - to help you imagine it? We've brought in various testimony (Pergamon plaque, Connolly's experiment, YouTube videos) but you discount all of them. So I think we've done all we can. You can't imagine the low hold. OK. It doesn't mean the low hold wasn't real (since the set of things that are real and the set of things you can imagine are not the same).

You could advance the discussion materially by repeating Connolly's experiment and proving that it is in fact impossible to use the low hold (note that proving something is impossible requires doing your absolute best to prove that it is possible).

Now I think this aspect of the discusison has more than run its course but there is still good stuff here on Swiss pikes and shield holds and such like so could we clear the stage for them, or else pack it in?

Just a couple of final points and then I'm happy to call it quits:

The Pergamon plaque: one may affirm that it is problematic. Does it depict intermediate or close order? Are the surviving phalangites actually in phalanx formation? etc. But it does show an underam grip and it is the one piece of archaeological evidence we have on the subject. So it counts as a point for the underarm position.

Peter Connolly: he doesn't go any further than state that his volunteers were able to switch from intermediate to close formation by countermarching one file in between two others. This countermarching could not have been done with shields facing the front as there wasn't the space for them to pass between the stationary files the shields of which were only about one foot apart. Shields would have had to be at the volunteers' sides (or not held at all). When they subsequently lowered their pikes he does not state whether they brought their shields in front or not. So he does not actually bear on the topic of the thread.

The YouTube video: I took screenshots which show the re-enactors advancing in a ragged open order, and one screenshot showing CG figures advancing in close order with pikes projecting over their shields. So no evidence of underarm in close order.

But the bottom line, as you rightly point out, is that we need a bunch of reenactors to try out close order with shields in front and pikes underarm to settle once and for all whether it is possible. Until then it remains a debatable topic and we've pretty much beaten the evidence we have to death. Time for a decent burial.



Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: aligern on January 16, 2019, 11:03:08 PM
I am not at all sure that reenactment will prove very much.  Suppose we had a bayonet fighting manual, and set up reenactors to work through the drills. There is an immediate problem that they are going to be much more defensive that real life if they are using steel bayonets, much more aggressive if they are toting rubber substitutes. However, Sarge's advice is to always have one up the spout in a bayonet attack and to shoot the opponent. If thst is not in the manual we completely miss how the veteran soldier would be acting.
Likely the use of pike and sarissa in formation. has a mix of obvious drills and not so obvious I accept that reenacting with kit is going to tell us that some moves  are possible and others quite difficult, but the possibility of holding a pike high versus low is not proof that it was how it was done. Even showing that one way of using the pike was easier would not prove things either way.
Look at the picture of Culloden which shows the Anglo-Hanoverians using the bayonet overarm against the Scots, apparently this is because the drill was a carry-over from how pikes had been used before they were abandoned ( I realise may well be citing previous posts here).  I would happily believe that using a rifle and bayonet overarm is more wearing and less easily used for defence than the 'conventional' underarm bayonet position, but apparently the less obvious position was used in 1745.
Given that the evidence for underarm pike use is good, but very limited and that the comparabda suggest that overarm was the preferred method during the second, three hundred year flowering of the pike , that there is a possibility that both methods were used. If we did not have the Pergamon plaque then the comparative evidence would reign, so there should be room for both interpretations.
Roy
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 16, 2019, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 16, 2019, 11:03:08 PM
I am not at all sure that reenactment will prove very much. 

I agree. Reenactment is interesting, but suffers a conjoint problem.

As the complexity of the question increases, it is increasingly difficult to be certain that the reenactment reflects history, and so it is increasingly difficult to use the conclusions of reenactment to make conclusions about history.

All of just Justin's questions about the Pergamon plate were valid, but the questions also reflect how difficult it will be to convince anyone that a complex reenactment = history.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:18:04 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 16, 2019, 08:00:06 AM

Quote
You cannot hold a sarissa with a classical Greek aspis, I have tried, and the rim is in the way.

Were you holding the shield by a porpax, or by an ochane (however you might interpret that)?


I was holding the aspis with my forearm in the porpax. I could hold a sarissa if I hung the aspis on my neck via a strap and slipped my wrist through the antilabe, but then the shield is a nuisance more than a benefit as it flops around. You can hold a spear in the left hand with no problem with an aspis, but it has to be vertical, in the same plane as your body.  You cannot hold it horizontally because of the rim.


There is another possibility, that I will throw out for the sake of discussion because it is something that  would never have occurred to me had i not seen it.  A friend of mine who makes the best aspides I have used showed me one day that he can use a spear two handed by slipping the porpax up past his elbow joint and resting it just above rather than just below the elbow. I laughed this off- silly noobs and their theories- until I found a vase image showing the same thing. Probably just chance and a bad vase artist, but worth a moments consideration because it changes everything if an ochane was a strap that fit above, not below the elbow.  You can do anything you wish with your arms at that point.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:48:42 AM
Quote from: aligern on January 16, 2019, 11:03:08 PM
I am not at all sure that reenactment will prove very much.

Reenactment is the only way we will move forward with many of the questions that are now at an impasse in the literature. Unfortunately it is only as good as the questions we reenact and the way we interpret the results.  This is also true for any scientific process.

At its best, reenactment, or more fashionably, experimental archaeology, can show what a human body can and cannot do.  If someone were to object that humans are somehow fundamentally different today, they would have to support that with data because there is no such evidence. If reenactors were unable to hold a musket and bayonette overhand to strike, it would make me question the artist in the image you mention.  That they can do it, tells us very little of course in this case because they can obviously also hold them low and it leaves either option just as likely. Science is all about falsification in the sense laid out by Karl Popper.  Where showing that a human can do something, rather than can't comes into play when authors claim something cannot be done. In my own work on othismos the main arguments against pushing for years were things like "men would get crushed" or "12 ranks could never have stood up to 50".  Both of these assertions I have proven false by having men not die while being crushed and described the way force tapers off after 12-16 in file. Not to worry though, I also showed that the biggest argument from the pro-othismos side, that the charge lent momentum to the push, is also mistaken and that men cannot push with their shoulder in the bowl of the aspis facing sideways.  Ironically shutting down each of these arguments, simply leaves us where we started, though with less mistaken notions, because I can in no way prove that any Greek ever pushed, only describe the most efficient way if they did.  So it is still very much a matter of faith (not being a historian and having to build a career on such theories, I have the luxury of accepting this reality).

What holds true for humans also holds true for weapons, armor, etc. If the recreations are accurate, then the responses will be as well.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 17, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:48:42 AM
If the recreations are accurate...

And how do we determine the accuracy without referring to the same source we are trying to clarify?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 17, 2019, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:18:04 AM
I was holding the aspis with my forearm in the porpax. I could hold a sarissa if I hung the aspis on my neck via a strap and slipped my wrist through the antilabe, but then the shield is a nuisance more than a benefit as it flops around. You can hold a spear in the left hand with no problem with an aspis, but it has to be vertical, in the same plane as your body.  You cannot hold it horizontally because of the rim.


There is another possibility, that I will throw out for the sake of discussion because it is something that  would never have occurred to me had i not seen it.  A friend of mine who makes the best aspides I have used showed me one day that he can use a spear two handed by slipping the porpax up past his elbow joint and resting it just above rather than just below the elbow. I laughed this off- silly noobs and their theories- until I found a vase image showing the same thing. Probably just chance and a bad vase artist, but worth a moments consideration because it changes everything if an ochane was a strap that fit above, not below the elbow.  You can do anything you wish with your arms at that point.

Very useful, thanks. I agree that a strap (meaning a neck strap) would be no help, but I don't think an ochane is a strap.

Do you have any illustrations of this high handle technique? It sounds to me as if this is a possible interpretation of the ochane. How about the Alexander Sarcophagus figures with left hands free - like the man on the right of this image:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-turkey-istanbul-interior-of-alexander-sarcophagus-58280202.html

with his cloak unfortunately in the way! But is this like the position you describe?

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 17, 2019, 08:41:06 AM
Quote from: Dangun on January 17, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:48:42 AM
If the recreations are accurate...

And how do we determine the accuracy without referring to the same source we are trying to clarify?

Paul is referring to "weapons, armor etc."  So, we must refer to our evidence to produce an accurate copy to test.  Where we have a surviving example, we have an objective source (the subjective bit being discussing how typical an example it is).  If we have bits of a surviving example, it becomes more interpretational.  In the case of our phalangites kit, we only have bits (shield faces but no handles, various heads, possible butt spikes, a mysterious tube) so we start with a less than objective test set anyway.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on January 17, 2019, 08:51:32 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 17, 2019, 08:41:06 AM
Paul is referring to "weapons, armor etc."  So, we must refer to our evidence to produce an accurate copy to test.

A piece of equipment is easier.  Its the action and coordination that's harder. Most of the scenarios we are discussing are coordinated movements across units in periods of stress.

At the very most a reenactment shows what is possible, not what was.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 17, 2019, 08:58:18 AM
This is the 'value of reenactment' thread rehashed - no need. In this case, the hypothesis is "it is impossible for second and subsequent ranks to hold a sarissa in a low hold with a shield facing (mostly) forward while in close (one cubit) order". The impossibility or otherwise of this can be proven (or at least very strongly indicated) by reenactment.

I don't think the precise dimensions of the kit matter greatly in this case, though a good experiment would try various options. The obvious starting point would be the easiest, ie 60 cm shields.

(Edited to more tightly specify the hypothesis)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 05:11:04 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 17, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:48:42 AM
If the recreations are accurate...

And how do we determine the accuracy without referring to the same source we are trying to clarify?

By reduction. Not every element is unknown.  So if I want to understand how a hoplite could use his sword when standing in a line of overlapping shields for example. I start with an accurate sword, fairly easy to do given the surviving examples, and men in line with accurate shields, also not so difficult given that for our purposes here it is the shape, not the construction that matter.  Then you use the sword against a target, discovering all the strikes you can deliver given the limitations on your range of motion. Figure out things like: can you strike under the shields? can you strike forehand and backhand without decapitating the men beside you?

Once you have figured out what you, a human, can do, go back and compare this to vase imagery and text.  You will not suprisingly learn that variations on what is called the "Harmodios blow" from its use in vase imagery of Harmodios, work best. 

It is important to note that what you are really doing is providing context for the analysis of text and images.  I will give you an example of context.  While watching two opposing lines of reenactors coming together, a possible explanation for the image on the Chigi olope struck me.  One problem with the image is that those who want to see the two ranks as indicative of reserves moving up or some other event remote in time from the clash of the front ranks, note that the front rank has stopped and the second rank is running.  But when you actually see two units come together to fight this is exactly what it looks like in the moment of engagement. The ranks pull apart in the charge, you have to to run effectively. So when the first ranks meet, the second are in fact still running. Interestingly as well, to a viewer looking directly as the clashing lines from the side, the follow-up ranks look longer because of a trick of perspective. And they are in the image.  Is this correct? Who knows?  But it is different, and it comes from context provided by actually seeing it done.

It is important to note that this adding of context is being done all the time already, via assumptions made and analogy with other cultures.  The number of really crap assumptions that have been widely accepted by those who have a limited knowledge of physics could fill the forum.  The same holds true for analogies, even when authors are not truly aware they are making them, such as "Archaic hoplites fought just like classical hoplites".  It is no less an analogy than the opposing "Archaic hoplites fought like unshielded and mostly naked stone-aged cultures".
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 17, 2019, 08:31:57 AM

Very useful, thanks. I agree that a strap (meaning a neck strap) would be no help, but I don't think an ochane is a strap.

Do you have any illustrations of this high handle technique? It sounds to me as if this is a possible interpretation of the ochane. How about the Alexander Sarcophagus figures with left hands free - like the man on the right of this image with his cloak unfortunately in the way! But is this like the position you describe?

That is what it would look like, but I think, as is the case with all images I have seen of this (at least 2) that it is an artist's mistake.  Were I a grad student though, I would run with it :)  But I would not expect to find images of this, since we have no images of sarissaphoroi and hoplites do not really benefit from it.  It is long after my era, but didn't Belisaurius's cavalry have shields on the upper arm?  I think I have seen that.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: Dangun on January 17, 2019, 08:51:32 AM

At the very most a reenactment shows what is possible, not what was.

Exactly. This is the one and only purpose.  Reenactment shows what cannot be done and shuts down avenues of unrealistic speculation (charging does not make a mass push stronger for example). It also shows what is possible.  The best example of this is looking at my work and that of Chris Mathew. Both of us sought clarification through reenactment. We both came up with schemes for hoplite combat that diverge completely, but both of our works presented views that were not the two rival camps on hoplite combat that were the product solely of thought experiments. Either, neither, or both of us in some part may be correct, but we have moved the ball from where it sat for a few decades.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 17, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 05:11:04 PM
Once you have figured out what you, a human, can do, go back and compare this to vase imagery and text.  You will not suprisingly learn that variations on what is called the "Harmodios blow" from its use in vase imagery of Harmodios, work best. 

Anyone wondering what the 'Harmoduis blow' might be can se eit described and analysed here (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2009/07/harmodios-blow.html).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 18, 2019, 05:18:31 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 17, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 05:11:04 PM
Once you have figured out what you, a human, can do, go back and compare this to vase imagery and text.  You will not suprisingly learn that variations on what is called the "Harmodios blow" from its use in vase imagery of Harmodios, work best. 

Anyone wondering what the 'Harmoduis blow' might be can se eit described and analysed here (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2009/07/harmodios-blow.html).

If anyone is familiar with Meyer's longsword cuts, here is a comparison of images.  Thrusts are pretty much either high or low.  The high, arching over the shield into the side of the neck would have been particularly nasty when shield on shield.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 18, 2019, 08:08:19 AM
Interesting.  And whether cutting or thrusting, high or low, the favourite target area seems to have been the neck.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 18, 2019, 09:20:31 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 17, 2019, 03:18:04 AM
There is another possibility, that I will throw out for the sake of discussion because it is something that  would never have occurred to me had i not seen it.  A friend of mine who makes the best aspides I have used showed me one day that he can use a spear two handed by slipping the porpax up past his elbow joint and resting it just above rather than just below the elbow. I laughed this off- silly noobs and their theories- until I found a vase image showing the same thing. Probably just chance and a bad vase artist, but worth a moments consideration because it changes everything if an ochane was a strap that fit above, not below the elbow.  You can do anything you wish with your arms at that point.

Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 18, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 18, 2019, 08:08:19 AM
Interesting.  And whether cutting or thrusting, high or low, the favourite target area seems to have been the neck.

If you think of the bit of hoplite above the aspis, it consists of a helmet with much of the face covered and a bare neck.  If you can reach without over exposing yourself, it seems an obvious target. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 18, 2019, 09:57:17 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 18, 2019, 09:20:31 AM
Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 18, 2019, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: RichT on January 18, 2019, 09:57:17 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 18, 2019, 09:20:31 AM
Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.

OK. Ochane doesn't have a definition in Perseus. In my Greek-English lexicon it is defined as 'the handle of a shield', derived from the verb ocheo, 'to carry', 'to convey' which also supplies the adjective 'ochos', 'that which carries or conveys'. So ochane is 'the thing which carries the shield.' All of which says strictly nothing about what an ochane looked liked or how it worked.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 18, 2019, 10:44:54 AM
We discussed ochane starting here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.msg22646#msg22646); it appears to be unique to this passage but is probably a variant of ochanon, which is attested elsewhere.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 18, 2019, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 18, 2019, 10:44:54 AM
We discussed ochane starting here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.msg22646#msg22646); it appears to be unique to this passage but is probably a variant of ochanon, which is attested elsewhere.

Interesting Duncan, thanks.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 18, 2019, 11:32:12 AM
That was a good thread. Next time these topics come up we should just link to that, since it had more light than heat.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 18, 2019, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 18, 2019, 09:57:17 AM

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.

I think the explanation, if this theory is correct, is that the porpax was a specific construction of bronze and wood that had to fit very tight on the forearm in order to allow fluid movement and keep the aspis from rotating up and down (I have likened it to the cuff on an artificial limb). To move it up reliably past the elbow joint, the ochane may have been simply a leather porpax. Much more simple and with enough give to slip past the swelling of the elbow.

Rich, if you would like to write something on this together, I would gladly join you and bring in my friend who first showed me for visuals.  I do not want to post the original video he sent me on here, but if you email me at pbardunias@fau.edu I will.  Watching him move- and with a full sized aspis- is a real game changer.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 20, 2019, 06:42:25 PM
I chanced today to notice that Julius Africanus uses the word ochanon - not ochane, which remains unique to Plutarch - to include the porpax of the hoplite shield. The passage includes one of our other favourite words as well:

Quote from: Kestoi VII.1.10, pp.36-37 of the Wallraff editionFor the Greeks are fond of heavy, full armour: they have a double helmet, a breastplate covered with scales, a concave bronze shield held by two handles (ochanois duo) (of which the one surrounding the forearm avails for shoving (eis othismon - for othismos!), while the other is grasped by the end of the hand), two greaves, a hand-held javelin, and a spear for hand-to-hand combat...

To Africanus, the porpax and antilabe are both ochana.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 20, 2019, 07:28:36 PM
Ooh a double play - nice find Duncan! If you have the Greek in front of you, you couldn't give the Greek for 'a concave bronze shield' by any chance? I don't think there's a text online. Also what's the context?


Edit - scratch that request, Amazon view inside to the rescue  - aspis epichalkos koile
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 20, 2019, 07:38:23 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 20, 2019, 07:28:36 PM
Ooh a double play - nice find Duncan! If you have the Greek in front of you, you couldn't give the Greek for 'a concave bronze shield' by any chance? I don't think there's a text online. Also what's the context?

Actually, you can see for yourself using the "Look Inside" on amazon.co.uk (I just searched for "shield"). But "concave bronze shield" is "aspis epichalkos koile" - koile as in Coele-Syria, so perhaps "hollow" would be the more literal translation?

The context is "why can't the Romans beat the Persians like the Greeks did". It's a not very period-specific description of Greek weaponry and tactics, followed by a nod to the Macedonians and a list of Roman deficiencies some of which can be fixed by copying the good old Greeks. Doesn't seem to recognize that they're not the same Persians, apart from any other issues!

Edit: you beat me to it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 20, 2019, 07:49:04 PM
Yes thanks - and aspis epichalkos koile as in Asclep v.1 of the shields of the phalanx Makedonike chalke octopalaistos ou lian koile - which is what I was reminded of.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Prufrock on January 22, 2019, 10:01:16 AM
Gentlemen (and any ladies who may also be reading), I would like to apologise for having been a little antagonistic earlier in this thread. It may not read too badly, but my attitude was not of a standard I am happy with. Apologies to Justin especially. He and I do tend to disagree on quite a lot of things, but his heart is in the right place.

On reflection, my tone here over the past while has probably slipped from what I would previously have considered appropriate. In future, I will look to reverse that trend.

Thanks, and again, my apologies.
Aaron 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 22, 2019, 11:55:34 AM
All OK Aaron.  :) For my part I'm realising just how much I have to learn. This is the place to do it.

Shield grips are getting complicated. A porpax is different from an ochane but it is an ochanon. So ochane/ochanon is a flexible term - perhaps the different spelling hints at that? - that will have different meanings depending on who is using it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 22, 2019, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 22, 2019, 11:55:34 AMperhaps the different spelling hints at that?

The different spelling indicates a different gender - -on is a neuter ending, is feminine - but whether that enables us to deduce anything about different shades of meaning I do not know.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 22, 2019, 12:19:58 PM
Just observing, knowing nothing of the language, but it seems to me ochanon/ochane may simply be a word like handle - a generic word for something to hold something whose precise form depends on what it is the handle of.  A briefcase handle is different from a saucepan handle, for example.

In this case, though, perhaps we should try to look at what might be different about the ochane and the porpax.  Is a porpax always rigid for example?  In which case, an ochane could be something more flexible?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on January 22, 2019, 01:17:08 PM
I think it's unlikely the gender difference indicates different meanings, and more likely it's just one of those things (an error, a copyist's error, a dialect difference, a personal preference difference, a time difference).

Ochanon gives every impression of meaning pretty much the same as porpax and/or antilabe:

Pausanias 5.26.3: "Among the offerings of Micythus is Struggle carrying jumping-weights, the shape of which is as follows. They are half of a circle, not an exact circle but elliptical, and made so that the fingers pass through as they do through the handle of a shield [ochanon aspidos]"

Strabo 14.2.27: "As evidences of their zeal for military affairs, writers adduce shield-holders [ochana], shield-emblems, and crests, for all these are called "Carian." At least Anacreon says,"Come, put thine arm through the shield-holder [ochanou], work of the Carians.""

Herodotus 1.171.4: "They invented three things in which they were followed by the Greeks: it was the Carians who originated wearing crests on their helmets and devices on their shields, and who first made grips [ochana] for their shields; until then all who used shields carried them without these grips [ochanon], and guided them with leather belts [telamosi] which they slung round the neck and over the left shoulder."

Herodotus 2.141.5: "Their enemies came there, too, and during the night were overrun by a horde of field mice that gnawed quivers and bows and the handles [ochana] of shields, with the result that many were killed fleeing unarmed the next day."

Aelian, De Natura Animalium 12.5 and 12.30 - translations forthcoming!

Aeneas Tacticus 29.12: - translation forthcoming

Lucian, Anacharsis 27: "Yes, and you saw in the gymnasium a bronze disk like a small buckler [aspis], but without handle [ochanon] or straps [telamonas]; you tried it as it lay there, and found it heavy and, owing to its smooth surface, hard to handle."

Lucian, Herodotus and Aetion 5: "On the other side of the picture, more Loves playing among Alexander's armour; two are carrying his spear, as porters do a heavy beam; two more grasp the handles [ochanon] of the shield, tugging it along with another reclining on it, playing king, I suppose;"

Procopius de Bellis 1.1.13: "But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and, at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip [ochanou], such as to cover the region of the face and neck."

And add Duncan's discovery,

Julius Africanus, Kestoi 7.1.10: "For the Greeks are fond of heavy, full armour: they have a double helmet, a breastplate covered with scales, a concave bronze shield held by two handles [ochanois duo] (of which the one surrounding the forearm avails for othismos, while the other is grasped by the end of the hand), two greaves, a hand-held javelin, and a spear for hand-to-hand combat."

Then ochane:

Plutarch, Cleomenes 11.2: "Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap [ochane] instead of by a fixed handle [porpax]."

Some of these authors are not such as you would expect to know or be concerned about precise technical details of shield carrying arrangements, but the suggestion is:
- ochanon/-e is a general word for a shield handle that doesn't have a strong technical meaning
- porpax and antilabe are more specific words for the armband and handgrip
- telamon is a strap round the shoulder
So the porpax and the antilabe are examples of ochana; but Plutarch's distinction must mean something, and given the perishability and mouse-eatability of other ochana, and the context of freeing up the left hand, I suggest that while the porpax is a rigid (sometimes bronze) armband worn below the elbox, the ochanon/-e in this case is a flexible leather strap that could be pushed above the elbow.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 22, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
The Aineias 29.12 example, as said in the other thread, refers to shields with ochana of leather or wood - ochana ... skytina kai xylina, which supports the idea of a word with a fairly broad meaning.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 22, 2019, 08:40:17 PM
Quote from: RichT on January 22, 2019, 01:17:08 PM
I think it's unlikely the gender difference indicates different meanings, and more likely it's just one of those things (an error, a copyist's error, a dialect difference, a personal preference difference, a time difference).

Ochanon gives every impression of meaning pretty much the same as porpax and/or antilabe:

Pausanias 5.26.3: "Among the offerings of Micythus is Struggle carrying jumping-weights, the shape of which is as follows. They are half of a circle, not an exact circle but elliptical, and made so that the fingers pass through as they do through the handle of a shield [ochanon aspidos]"

Strabo 14.2.27: "As evidences of their zeal for military affairs, writers adduce shield-holders [ochana], shield-emblems, and crests, for all these are called "Carian." At least Anacreon says,"Come, put thine arm through the shield-holder [ochanou], work of the Carians.""

Herodotus 1.171.4: "They invented three things in which they were followed by the Greeks: it was the Carians who originated wearing crests on their helmets and devices on their shields, and who first made grips [ochana] for their shields; until then all who used shields carried them without these grips [ochanon], and guided them with leather belts [telamosi] which they slung round the neck and over the left shoulder."

Herodotus 2.141.5: "Their enemies came there, too, and during the night were overrun by a horde of field mice that gnawed quivers and bows and the handles [ochana] of shields, with the result that many were killed fleeing unarmed the next day."

Aelian, De Natura Animalium 12.5 and 12.30 - translations forthcoming!

Aeneas Tacticus 29.12: - translation forthcoming

Lucian, Anacharsis 27: "Yes, and you saw in the gymnasium a bronze disk like a small buckler [aspis], but without handle [ochanon] or straps [telamonas]; you tried it as it lay there, and found it heavy and, owing to its smooth surface, hard to handle."

Lucian, Herodotus and Aetion 5: "On the other side of the picture, more Loves playing among Alexander's armour; two are carrying his spear, as porters do a heavy beam; two more grasp the handles [ochanon] of the shield, tugging it along with another reclining on it, playing king, I suppose;"

Procopius de Bellis 1.1.13: "But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and, at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip [ochanou], such as to cover the region of the face and neck."

And add Duncan's discovery,

Julius Africanus, Kestoi 7.1.10: "For the Greeks are fond of heavy, full armour: they have a double helmet, a breastplate covered with scales, a concave bronze shield held by two handles [ochanois duo] (of which the one surrounding the forearm avails for othismos, while the other is grasped by the end of the hand), two greaves, a hand-held javelin, and a spear for hand-to-hand combat."

Then ochane:

Plutarch, Cleomenes 11.2: "Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap [ochane] instead of by a fixed handle [porpax]."

Some of these authors are not such as you would expect to know or be concerned about precise technical details of shield carrying arrangements, but the suggestion is:
- ochanon/-e is a general word for a shield handle that doesn't have a strong technical meaning
- porpax and antilabe are more specific words for the armband and handgrip
- telamon is a strap round the shoulder
So the porpax and the antilabe are examples of ochana; but Plutarch's distinction must mean something, and given the perishability and mouse-eatability of other ochana, and the context of freeing up the left hand, I suggest that while the porpax is a rigid (sometimes bronze) armband worn below the elbox, the ochanon/-e in this case is a flexible leather strap that could be pushed above the elbow.

Interesting. Putting it all together, ochanon can be a generic term that covers porpax and antilabe (which would be Lucian's meaning), or it can refer to something that works like a porpax but is not a porpax and is made of leather or wood. Plutarch implies that the non-porpax ochanon is different from the porpax in that it leaves the left hand free to hold the pike. The regular Greek porpax only works if the left hand grasps the antilabe, wedging the forearm firmly in the porpax which keeps the shield rigid on the arm. A porpax doesn't work without the antilabe, but an ochanon does. So we need something that does not let the shield flop about uselessly but leaves the left hand free. It could be something for the upper arm.

For the life of me I can't see three straps in Secunda's interpretation of the Ajax shield. I see only one strap, possibly two with the index finger holding on to the second one.

(https://i.imgur.com/kJrqBJt.jpg)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 23, 2019, 05:03:32 AM
Hmmm... has anyone linked the description of Ochanon and telamon below to the somewhat odd Urartian shield grip system?

Herodotus 1.171.4: "They invented three things in which they were followed by the Greeks: it was the Carians who originated wearing crests on their helmets and devices on their shields, and who first made grips [ochana] for their shields; until then all who used shields carried them without these grips [ochanon], and guided them with leather belts [telamosi] which they slung round the neck and over the left shoulder."

See attached.

Justin, see the attached image of three grips on an aspis that have vexed me.

Just a reminder that many aspides had three grips, with a second antilabe opposite the normal one.  Probably to allow the aspis to be carried as a litter or basket.

The Kalkan shield has three "ochanes" much like some ancient pelta.  See here how they were used to grip the shield in multiple ways: http://bearwayarchery.blogspot.com/2016/09/use-of-kalkan-shield-part-2-shield-on.html
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on January 23, 2019, 05:55:02 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 23, 2019, 05:03:32 AM
Hmmm... has anyone linked the description of Ochanon and telamon below to the somewhat odd Urartian shield grip system?

Herodotus 1.171.4: "They invented three things in which they were followed by the Greeks: it was the Carians who originated wearing crests on their helmets and devices on their shields, and who first made grips [ochana] for their shields; until then all who used shields carried them without these grips [ochanon], and guided them with leather belts [telamosi] which they slung round the neck and over the left shoulder."

See attached.

Justin, see the attached image of three grips on an aspis that have vexed me.

Just a reminder that many aspides had three grips, with a second antilabe opposite the normal one.  Probably to allow the aspis to be carried as a litter or basket.

The Kalkan shield has three "ochanes" much like some ancient pelta.  See here how they were used to grip the shield in multiple ways: http://bearwayarchery.blogspot.com/2016/09/use-of-kalkan-shield-part-2-shield-on.html

The first image shows how three ochana would have worked. The middle one does the actual supporting of the shield. The one around the wrist and upper arm keeps the arm rigid in a bent shape, preventing the forearm from slipping out the middle band whilst leaving the left hand free to hold javelins/spears. I'm guessing the Urartian shield grips worked in a similar way - they seem to be angled to do so. But, mmh, they are in the wrong place on the shield.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 23, 2019, 08:37:35 AM
The kalkan shield reminds me of a passage in Xenophon's Anabasis:

"And now fire was already showing through the roof, and Xenophon and his men inside the house had equipped themselves with breastplates and were furnished with shields and swords and helmets, when Silanus the Macistian, a lad of about eighteen years, gave a signal with the trumpet; and on the instant they leaped forth with swords drawn, and so did the Greeks from the other houses. Then the Thracians took to flight, swinging their shields around behind them, as was their custom; and some of them who tried to jump over the palings were captured hanging in the air, with their shields caught in the stakes, while others missed the ways that led out and were killed; and the Greeks continued the pursuit till they were outside the village." - Anabasis VII.4.16-17

Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 23, 2019, 05:55:02 AM
I'm guessing the Urartian shield grips worked in a similar way - they seem to be angled to do so. But, mmh, they are in the wrong place on the shield.

The Urartian shield may have had a different design intention.  Using all three grips together seems impossible given normal human anatomy.  Using the central grip with one of the other two gives the option of holding the shield high to protect the face (as one might wish to do against archery) or low to protect the body (as in close combat).  Whether it was convenient to reverse the hold in battle, or whether the troops would start out with the shield in one of the two positions and keep it that way throughout, is perhaps an experimental archaeology question.  I would expect the high shield grip (handles along the lower part) to have been used for assaults on cities (a surprisingly common event in warfare of the period) and the low grip (handles at the top) to have been used for battle.

That is my best guess, anyway.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 23, 2019, 09:15:23 AM
QuoteFor the life of me I can't see three straps in Secunda's interpretation of the Ajax shield. I see only one strap, possibly two with the index finger holding on to the second one.

Two straps seem certain - one in the fingers near the rim and the second just above the wrist.  The third one I'd guess would be the slightly lighter edge to the painting of the body, from the bottom edge and disappearing under the chest.  If that is a strap, it is somewhere around the elbow.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 23, 2019, 04:15:58 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 23, 2019, 08:37:35 AM
The kalkan shield reminds me of a passage in Xenophon's Anabasis:

"And now fire was already showing through the roof, and Xenophon and his men inside the house had equipped themselves with breastplates and were furnished with shields and swords and helmets, when Silanus the Macistian, a lad of about eighteen years, gave a signal with the trumpet; and on the instant they leaped forth with swords drawn, and so did the Greeks from the other houses. Then the Thracians took to flight, swinging their shields around behind them, as was their custom; and some of them who tried to jump over the palings were captured hanging in the air, with their shields caught in the stakes, while others missed the ways that led out and were killed; and the Greeks continued the pursuit till they were outside the village." - Anabasis VII.4.16-17

Quote from: Justin Swanton on January 23, 2019, 05:55:02 AM
I'm guessing the Urartian shield grips worked in a similar way - they seem to be angled to do so. But, mmh, they are in the wrong place on the shield.

The Urartian shield may have had a different design intention.  Using all three grips together seems impossible given normal human anatomy.  Using the central grip with one of the other two gives the option of holding the shield high to protect the face (as one might wish to do against archery) or low to protect the body (as in close combat).  Whether it was convenient to reverse the hold in battle, or whether the troops would start out with the shield in one of the two positions and keep it that way throughout, is perhaps an experimental archaeology question.  I would expect the high shield grip (handles along the lower part) to have been used for assaults on cities (a surprisingly common event in warfare of the period) and the low grip (handles at the top) to have been used for battle.

That is my best guess, anyway.

The Uratian shield would have looked like this when held, but also had a telamon attached to the two lateral grips. The make of this shield seems to be the same as the later kalkan by the way.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on January 23, 2019, 04:46:02 PM
More Funcken nostalgia - the Anatolian Guard!  Les Higgins made a figure of this one in his Ancient range.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 23, 2019, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 23, 2019, 04:15:58 PM
The Uratian shield would have looked like this when held, but also had a telamon attached to the two lateral grips. The make of this shield seems to be the same as the later kalkan by the way.

Interesting.  So the two small handles are not so much handles as strap attachments.  That would make eminent sense, and brings to mind Herodotus about the Carians inventing grips (okhana) for shields,

"... until then all who used shields carried them without these grips (okhanōn), and guided them with leather belts (telamōsi) which they slung round the neck and over the left shoulder." - Herodotus I.171

The Urartians seem to have pioneered the concept of belt and braces, so to speak.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 24, 2019, 09:24:15 AM
This has just got interesting.

The Persepolis figures in Paul's illustration are usually identified as tributaries from Skudra, the Persian satrapy that included Thrace and Macedonia. This is not a 100% certain identification, of course, because the Apadana tributary reliefs don't have names attached and the Skudran figures on the royal tombs, which do have labels, don't look quite like this. However the cloak, pointy hat, javelins, the boots visible on some figures, and perhaps the wicker structure of the shields, do match up with other descriptions and illustrations of Thracians. But unlike the typical Thracian crescent pelte, these figures' shields seem to be round, quite deeply concave, and rimless. Much like the later "Macedonian" shield shape, in fact, though made of different materials.

So are we looking at an ancestor of the Macedonian shield? Carried by one off-centre handle and with a strap in "Urartian" style to sling it on the shoulder when marching or running away?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 24, 2019, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 24, 2019, 09:24:15 AM
So are we looking at an ancestor of the Macedonian shield? Carried by one off-centre handle and with a strap in "Urartian" style to sling it on the shoulder when marching or running away?

It is a thought.  The persistence of the design in the same general area is hinted at by Xenophon's strap-hanging palisade-crossing Thracians (if I remember correctly the standard pelta does not have a strap); I think Duncan's idea is worth following up if we can.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mark G on January 24, 2019, 10:03:56 AM
wasn't there a fashion in the Greek world at one point for adopting Thracian stuff, to look a bit more exiting and tough?

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Duncan Head on January 24, 2019, 10:22:53 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 24, 2019, 10:00:46 AM(if I remember correctly the standard pelta does not have a strap)

I'm not sure if we can say that with certainty. Illustrations do not normally show it, true; but then we do have occasional pictures of Thracian horsemen with crescent-shaped peltai on their backs (for example, figure 1 here (https://www.iianthropology.org/ChristopherWebber.pdf), and there are some earlier black-figure examples I can't lay hands on at the moment), presumably hung by something. So perhaps the strap was usually there but ignored by the artists?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on January 24, 2019, 10:51:31 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 24, 2019, 10:22:53 AM
So perhaps the strap was usually there but ignored by the artists?

It is of course possible, although the horseman in Figure 1 may have had an alternate securing apparatus, e.g. an over-the-shoulder thong passed through the handle (is the handle shown, or is that some other piece of equipment?).  But if artists made a habit of selectively ignoring straps, we are in deep trouble!

Interesting to note the rider's placement on the animal, reminiscent of early Egyptian cavalrymen.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on January 24, 2019, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 24, 2019, 09:24:15 AM

So are we looking at an ancestor of the Macedonian shield? Carried by one off-centre handle and with a strap in "Urartian" style to sling it on the shoulder when marching or running away?

I have been thinking of just how those Urartian shields were used for some time because the handle is weird.  I see one advantage to the odd, off-center handle placement.  If you have to hold a shield up in front of you for a long time, doing it with the elbow bent and the arm angled up around 45 degrees is much easier than holding the shield in the center with the arm out at 90 degrees as you would with a center grip shield. Holding a shield in front of you fairly statically is really only useful if you are forming a shield-wall (they do not need to overlap).  I know it is still argued, but the Assyrians appear to have formed in a line of shield backed by archers in a formation which persisted down to the Sparabara. The Persians and Assyrians carried shields that extended to the ground, alleviating the problem of holding them up.  But if a more mobile round shield were of use, this bent-arm grip would help.  If this is the reason for the odd grip, then the innovation of the "Carians" was an even more efficient means of bearing the weight of a shield when standing statically for extended periods.  It also may support the notion that the aspis was originally designed for troops that were forming a wall of shields in front of missile throwers, and maybe throwing themselves, as is my reading of Tyrtaios. Interestingly the aspis at the end of the 6th c gets a shield apron that covers the legs in the manner of of the solid Assyrian shields. Perhaps because arrows from strong bows have a flatter trajectory and are not easily intercepted by tilting the aspis up to shade the legs.

What is interesting in connection to the Macedonians, is that all you need to do to turn this into a pelta that allows the gripping of the sarissa is to turn it 90 degrees.  If you turn the handle into an ochane that you can slip the wrist through, you have a pelta. See below.  It would show that everything old is new again.

You might just be able to hold the sarissa when it is parallel to the grip, instead of passing the hand though a loop. I will have to test this.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 10, 2019, 04:24:42 PM
A friend of mine asked me what I thought of some of the calculations in the book "An Invincible Beast". I had read through, rather than really read, this book and I found some good, some bad. I think most of the problems with "Storm of Spears" arose from the anachronistic application of the Macedonian drill and spacing back onto hoplites, so I am inclined to be sympathetic to this book. But there are some glaring mistakes in the book. The one I was asked about was the balance point of a sarissa. He does a calculation and demonstrates that the point of balance is around 3 feet from the tip of the sauroter. The formula is good, but he forgot to include the mass of the shaft of the sarissa for some reason. If you do the proper calculation, you find that the point of balance, using the weights and measures from his own book, is actually 7.2 feet from the sauroter. In fact it is further towards the middle because I did not include the mass of the metal sleeve, which is halfway down the shaft.

I thought I would correct this because it is something that I know many of you have probably read and assumed was correct. I missed it too when I originally read it. If you come across questions like this, feel free to ask me anytime.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 10, 2019, 04:36:18 PM
Paul, did you make your calculation based on a straight or a tapered sarissa?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 11, 2019, 02:39:11 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2019, 04:36:18 PM
Paul, did you make your calculation based on a straight or a tapered sarissa?

Straight, because it is easier to determine the balance point of a uniform cylinder, and I wanted to follow his figures as much as possible.  He also used a hoplite spear head, while I believe the smaller point at Vergina is not a javelin as some suppose, but in fact the sarissa head.  That puts the taper at something like 1 1/4 inches in the rear to 3/4 inches at the tip.  It probably will not change much though if we also believe the sleeve was somewhere on the shaft.  Even with the taper balancing the shaft at 1/3 from the rear (unlikely), no sleeve and the smaller head I advocate it will not be 3 feet, but 4 and a quarter feet. Ironic is that he wrote how wrong Connolly was, when his calculation was so off. This is pretty much in accord with where Polybius places the left hand on the shaft.  With a two handed spear, you can hold well back from the balance point though.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 11, 2019, 08:51:18 AM
Out of interest, how certain are we that the 'sleeve' would be on the shaft, and if so, where along the length would it be?

Meanwhile, Paul's calculation is interesting because it suggests the sarissa was held with the point of balance at the right hand.

"For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; 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; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissae projecting beyond his body ..." - Polybius XVIII.29.2

If the left hand was at the point of balance, the left hand position is perforce fixed 6' along the shaft, so that would put the point of balance four cubits (6') from the end.

If the right hand was at the point of balance, that would put the point of balance somewhere between 3' and 4.5' along.  Personally I would favour 4 to 4.5' because having the hands 3' apart is less than convenient whereas 18-24" apart feels more natural.

Although ...

This raises the question about how the sarissa is held when upright, and whether this grip needs to change when it is lowered for action.  Here is where a point of balance at 3' from the end would be theoretically desirable, as the sarissa could be lowered without the end needing to touch the ground.

But is having to touch the ground while lowering the weapon so terrible?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 13, 2019, 09:10:50 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 11, 2019, 08:51:18 AM
Out of interest, how certain are we that the 'sleeve' would be on the shaft, and if so, where along the length would it be?

Meanwhile, Paul's calculation is interesting because it suggests the sarissa was held with the point of balance at the right hand.

First, I don't want to mislead you. See above that I calculated it with a theoretical balance point of the shaft of 1/3 from the base due to taper.  In reality this is impossible with the dimensions we have for the sockets.  So no, even under the best of all possible conditions you cannot get the balance to 3' from the rear, and that was my point, not to advocate for a 1/3 balanced shaft taper. If we assume a shaft with no taper, then the balance point is 6.8 feet from the base.  Probably something like 6' is the actual balance point given the taper.

Now as to handling:  If you are using the spear in a fashion where the front hand stays stationary and the rear moves up and down and around like a lever, then the balance should be at the front hand, which becomes the fulcrum point.  If you are using both hands to move it up and down- one up one down for example- you want the balance to be midway between the two hands.  Only if you are holding the rear steady and aiming by moving only the front hand do you want the balance at the rear hand.

I just did some tests. Either of the first two feel natural, while the rear balance point does not.  If there is anything to the notion of a strap aiding in supporting the shaft, then the balance would have to be on the front hand. The mid-balance feels good, probably the fastest action since two hands are moving the shaft, but you have to have two hands free to move.  With the rear balance, you are supporting the shaft primarily in the rear hand. This feels odd and makes the left hand the aiming had, not good for a right hander.

As to raising the sarissa, it is no big thing to slide your hands down or up the shaft, so I would not worry about hitting the ground.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 14, 2019, 10:59:57 AM
Sounds good to me.

I had not previously considered mid-balance as an option, so thanks for that, Paul.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 14, 2019, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 14, 2019, 10:59:57 AM
Sounds good to me.

I had not previously considered mid-balance as an option, so thanks for that, Paul.

Yea, I had not considered the mid balance either- I rarely do anything with 2 handed spears- but it was the best option if you are just fighting with such a spear.  The weighting on the front hand may be better in formation though, where it is easier to move the rear hand around and keep the shield hand motion limited to a forward thrusting motion.

I am constantly learning new things every time I pick up a weapon.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 14, 2019, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 14, 2019, 02:39:34 PM
I am constantly learning new things every time I pick up a weapon.

The best way to learn, to my way of thinking. :)

QuoteThe weighting on the front hand may be better in formation though, where it is easier to move the rear hand around and keep the shield hand motion limited to a forward thrusting motion.

This would also allow a lighter counterweight and overall a lighter weapon.

Out of interest, Paul, did you come up with a figure for how much a sarissa might have weighed?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 14, 2019, 09:58:39 PM
We know sauroter mass 1,070g from Vergina.  If we accept that the smaller point from Vergina is the sarissa head, that is 97g.  This leaves the shaft.    Mathew used a shaft of uniform 0.75 inch Radius (double for diameter), and Markle's density estimate for cornel wood of 0.83 g /cm3 .  This gives a shaft weight of 4.7 kg for a 550cm long shaft. So using his shaft estimate and the smaller point, we get 5.8 kg. 

But the small point is only 3/4 inches wide at the socket. If we assume a uniform taper, we can estimate easily by just breaking the shaft into two pieces.  One half of the shaft above or 2.38 kg for a 225cm shaft,  Plus 0.59 kg for a 225cm shaft of radius 0.375 in, for a total of 2.97kg.  For a uniformly tapered shaft from sauroter to the smaller head's socket and the metal parts, we get a total mass of 4.137kg

SO those are the highest and lowest values it could be for a shaft that is about 18 feet long. If we assume something less sever than a uniform taper, we could even find the mean of the other two, 4.9kg, as a conservative estimate.

If you want to check my math, plug the radius (half of diameter) length, and density in this calculator:
https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/vCalc/Mass+of+a+Cylinder
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 15, 2019, 06:39:55 AM
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):

(https://i.imgur.com/0TfRM68.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 15, 2019, 08:29:43 AM
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 (https://cedarstripkayak.wordpress.com/lumber-selection/162-2/) 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).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 15, 2019, 08:53:14 AM
QuoteThe '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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 15, 2019, 09:23:25 AM
Here's my source (https://www.wood-database.com/european-ash/) for the mass of European Ash. The wood experts will have to fight over it.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 15, 2019, 02:11:48 PM
This quote from an earlier discussion we had on the subject of sarissa weights from Duncan provides useful leads to estimated weights

QuoteMarkle 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 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju9qD8973gAhVDsKQKHflbBLQQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcejsh.icm.edu.pl%2Fcejsh%2Felement%2Fbwmeta1.element.hdl_11089_7892%2Fc%2FFolia_Archaeologica_23_2001_T1_13-45.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1J-eqFAK9iIIA8Cv41_1hX)), 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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 15, 2019, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 15, 2019, 02:11:48 PM
This quote from an earlier discussion we had on the subject of sarissa weights from Duncan provides useful leads to estimated weights

QuoteMarkle 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 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju9qD8973gAhVDsKQKHflbBLQQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcejsh.icm.edu.pl%2Fcejsh%2Felement%2Fbwmeta1.element.hdl_11089_7892%2Fc%2FFolia_Archaeologica_23_2001_T1_13-45.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1J-eqFAK9iIIA8Cv41_1hX)), 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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 15, 2019, 03:49:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 15, 2019, 07:03:21 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 15, 2019, 08:53:14 AM
QuoteThe '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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/WldschdVogelb.JPG/220px-WldschdVogelb.JPG) of what they identify as a game-damaged rowan.  It is a relatively young one and looks quite straight to me.

Quote from: RichT on February 15, 2019, 03:49:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 15, 2019, 09:23:25 AM
Here's my source (https://www.wood-database.com/european-ash/) 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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 15, 2019, 07:40:02 PM
QuoteYes.  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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 16, 2019, 06:56:54 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 15, 2019, 08:29:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 16, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
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?

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: nikgaukroger on February 16, 2019, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 16, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
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  :-[
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: nikgaukroger on February 16, 2019, 02:09:53 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 16, 2019, 06:56:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 16, 2019, 04:46:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 16, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
QuoteCarrying 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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Reislaeufer_Luzerner_Schilling.jpg)

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  :-[

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 16, 2019, 05:44:23 PM
Whatever the issue length of the pike, it was apparently pretty usual for troops to cut them down to something sensible
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 16, 2019, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: RichT on February 16, 2019, 04:46:16 PM
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).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 16, 2019, 08:06:06 PM
I confess I'm never been convinced by the connecting tube  :-[
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 17, 2019, 01:54:40 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 16, 2019, 07:46:33 PM

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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 17, 2019, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 17, 2019, 01:54:40 AM
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.

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: Jim Webster on February 16, 2019, 08:06:06 PM
I confess I'm never been convinced by the connecting tube  :-[

I think Duncan more recently decided against that idea, too.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 17, 2019, 08:06:09 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 17, 2019, 01:54:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Mick Hession on February 17, 2019, 11:18:15 AM
Much simpler to use a lathe, which according to Wikipedia had been developed by the 6th century BC at latest.

Cheers
Mick
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 17, 2019, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: Mick Hession on February 17, 2019, 11:18:15 AM
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfXjXqh2f6k) combined with this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9DMBSrovh4).

In fact, custom-made lance lathes (http://www.thejoustinglife.com/2012/05/andre-renier-creates-new-jousting-lance.html) 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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 17, 2019, 06:46:51 PM
A simple pole lathe for you  8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfnL98Fu6kw
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 17, 2019, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 17, 2019, 06:46:51 PM
A simple pole lathe for you  8)

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

Nice!
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 08:29:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 18, 2019, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 08:29:12 AM
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
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 10:05:50 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 18, 2019, 09:13:36 AM


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.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 18, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on February 18, 2019, 11:09:02 AM
Quote from: RichT on February 18, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
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 (http://www.thejoustinglife.com/2012/05/andre-renier-creates-new-jousting-lance.html): "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."
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 11:49:57 AM
I think we are agreeing on lance lathes in the late Middle Ages, mainly for the obvious reason we have evidence of their existence.  But much as I would love a discussion of medieval lances, they are perhaps a red herring, as they aren't even period pikes and their complex shape lends itself to lathe turning. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 18, 2019, 11:53:15 AM
But we are talking about sarissai aren't we, not jousting lances? If we are talking about jousting lances then sure, lathes - look at the handle shape, look at the thickness of the wood.

Edit - cross post with Anthony.

Presumably ECW reenactors know how to make pikes?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 12:18:53 PM
QuotePresumably ECW reenactors know how to make pikes?

But probably not from scratch - you can get long rounded poles these days from an industrial supplier.

Add : Found this discussion (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.32345.html) on MyArmoury.  OK, much use of power tools but the basics are probably similar.  Note incidentally that the project the pictures are of seems to be a two-part sarissa, complete with tube but no obvious counter weight.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 18, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 10:05:50 AM
We might note though that a lance and a pike are at different ends of the quality and difficulty line.

Agreed - the Macedonian pike would have been much more of a craftsman's product, not least because it was probably intended to last a lifetime.  Whether this would merit a lathe rather than extended spokeshave treatment is another question, although when you have a 21' or so length of wood to work with, a lathe would, as Mick points out, make life a lot simpler.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 18, 2019, 08:25:43 PM
Just a quick reply to some comments above.  I taper my dory by rotating it up against a vertical sanding belt and using ring gauges, but they probably shaved them down.  There is a reason that the little curved knives Spartans carried as boys are called xuele, from the root word of wood. 

If you are shaving a long straight tree, then by simply following the grain lines you get a natural taper, since the tree and the heartwood taper.  But you get one spear per tree.

Dory shafts were probably coppiced, which is a means of growing nice straight shafts, but takes a bit of investment. 

Patrick, I agree that we can reconcile the two Iphicratid accounts in this manner.  Also, if the common sword in use for hoplites was what Xenophon calls an enchiridion at Coronea, then it would have been a very short xipohos, so doubling it does not give some new long sword, but the older style, medium length xiphos which was perhaps still used by cavalry when not using a khopis.

I am not sure that symmetrical pelta need indicate a two handed grip.  As I said I think there is good reason to doubt it, and we see images of thracians with long one handed spears and peltae, and read of Egyptians who do not use two hands.  That said, renaissance partisan moves fluidly between one and two handed grips, so I do not rule out that it occurred.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 18, 2019, 10:00:03 PM
Sekunda, 'The Sarissa', Acta Universitatis Lodziensis 23 2001 has a big section on creating spear shafts. He describes tree trunks being split by wedge and smoothed to shape with spokeshaves. He also quotes:

Xenophon Cyropaedia 6.2.32
"And it will be a good thing for the man who has been taught how to smooth down a spear-shaft (palton) not to forget a rasp (xuele); and it will be well to bring along a file (rhine) too"

Xuele is better translated as drawknife. Xen Anab 4.7.16 and 4.8.25 talk of a xuele as a Spartan dagger.

Sekunda's article also discusses lengths of ash poles - under Diocletian, as pikes in 16th C Spain, and for WW1 aircraft manufacture, with lengths of 21 to 32 feet.

I don't think a lathe for a pike is a practical idea. Happy to see evidence that proves otherwise.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 19, 2019, 09:11:03 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 18, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 18, 2019, 10:05:50 AM
We might note though that a lance and a pike are at different ends of the quality and difficulty line.

Agreed - the Macedonian pike would have been much more of a craftsman's product, not least because it was probably intended to last a lifetime.  Whether this would merit a lathe rather than extended spokeshave treatment is another question, although when you have a 21' or so length of wood to work with, a lathe would, as Mick points out, make life a lot simpler.

We might note that artisan-made pikes made in the 16th century still exist today, so there is no obvious reason, save combat attrition, why  Macedonian ones wouldn't last a lifetime, so I don't think a "craftsmanship" angle is necessary. (You also totally underestimate the craftsmanship involved in late medieval lance construction but that another topic).  The problem with the pike-lathe theory is lack of evidence (as so often here).  What do we know of Hellenistic lathe technology?  According to this (http://www.turningtools.co.uk.wgo.ca/history2/history-turning2.html) site, our evidence suggest strap or bow lathes, which wouldn't do the job.  It is thought the Romans had wheel-lathes but pole-lathes are medieval technology.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 19, 2019, 09:42:47 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 18, 2019, 08:25:43 PM
If you are shaving a long straight tree, then by simply following the grain lines you get a natural taper, since the tree and the heartwood taper.  But you get one spear per tree.

This might have been all that was expected.  The idea of conserving resources and optimising available material seems to have taken second place to ensuring quality in other aspects of the classical world; Phoenicians, for example, selected only the best wood for their ships and utilised mortise-and-tenon joining for every plank in the hull (as in the Uluburun ship).  They do not seem to have bothered how many trees they went through to get a decent ship.

QuotePatrick, I agree that we can reconcile the two Iphicratid accounts in this manner.  Also, if the common sword in use for hoplites was what Xenophon calls an enchiridion at Coronea, then it would have been a very short xiphos, so doubling it does not give some new long sword, but the older style, medium length xiphos which was perhaps still used by cavalry when not using a khopis.

Thanks, Paul.  If our development sequence of traditional hoplite-Iphicratid hoplite-Macedonian phalangite is valid, then one would expect the Macedonians to utilise the same kind of sword as Iphicratid hoplites, at least initially.  In Plutarch's Alexander, swords are the usual trinity of xiphos, makhaira and (occasionally) egkheiridia, which unfortunately is not particularly revealing, especially as the egkheiridia used by the Macedonian monarch in Alex 16.4 becomes a xiphos in Alex 16.5) but the explanation is worth bearing in mind.

QuoteI am not sure that symmetrical pelta need indicate a two handed grip.

Indeed; it would not necessitate one, but would make one eminently possible.

We appear to have considerable evidence for shaving and whittling when it comes to spear-shaft construction.  Whether this translates to 20'+ shafts and Hellenistic engineering is something on which I have doubts.  A related matter which may shed some light on the question is how oars were made.

Traditionally, the answer is the oar lathe.  Beyond some enigmatic internet search references relating to Roman times, I have not managed to determine how far back oar lathes go or (perhaps more importantly) whether the technology would be applied to sarissa construction.  It would, nevertheless, be an interesting solution.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 19, 2019, 09:11:03 AM
We might note that artisan-made pikes made in the 16th century still exist today, so there is no obvious reason, save combat attrition, why  Macedonian ones wouldn't last a lifetime, so I don't think a "craftsmanship" angle is necessary. (You also totally underestimate the craftsmanship involved in late medieval lance construction but that another topic).  The problem with the pike-lathe theory is lack of evidence (as so often here).  What do we know of Hellenistic lathe technology?  According to this (http://www.turningtools.co.uk.wgo.ca/history2/history-turning2.html) site, our evidence suggest strap or bow lathes, which wouldn't do the job.  It is thought the Romans had wheel-lathes but pole-lathes are medieval technology.

What we know is unfortunately somewhere between little and nothing.  What we can surmise based on Hellenistic enginering generally is another matter.  Siege machines, polyremes, doors opened by steam and all manner of attested craftsmanship and engineering indicate that the Hellenistic world far surpassed the mediaeval in its capabilites and in quality of construction.  The production of masts, spars and oars for ships in general and polyremes in particular hint at lathes far more powerful and capable than the individual craftsman's strap or bow lathe.  So while we know very little, we can ontologically deduce that in order to achieve these feats of engineering the tools must have been of a commensurate level of sophistication.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 19, 2019, 10:00:08 AM
Alternatively here is how to make a mast without a lathe  ;)

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Solid-Boat-Mast
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 19, 2019, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 19, 2019, 10:00:08 AM
Alternatively here is how to make a mast without a lathe  ;)

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Solid-Boat-Mast

Thanks Jim.  I think we should be cautious again evidentially that oars, spars or masts were lathe-turned. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 19, 2019, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 19, 2019, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 19, 2019, 10:00:08 AM
Alternatively here is how to make a mast without a lathe  ;)

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Solid-Boat-Mast

Thanks Jim.  I think we should be cautious again evidentially that oars, spars or masts were lathe-turned.

Isn't it in 'Swallowdale' where one of the young people makes a new mast for a dingy with a spokeshave, sandpaper, calipers and linseed oil?

I tell you, we search all the literature for quotes  8)
But the author was a man who messed about in small boats and would know his stuff
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 19, 2019, 12:23:37 PM
For those fascinated by craft made things - carving oars (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjD5rTK4sfgAhU7WhUIHfIvAWo4ChC3AjAAegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dc6haJElXSvQ&usg=AOvVaw1Fcn4KKsrAGgJl3WlDvJ_I)

I'm not claiming this is how the ancients did it but you will see a square timber turned into a round one using planes and a draw knife.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 19, 2019, 01:29:46 PM
I preface this by saying I have never tried to lathe a spear, but I have done a table leg. I think it comes down to diameter. I have a hard time imagining how you damp the vibrations down in a 20' shaft that is less than an inch in diameter in some places without a long series of rings and a crap load of grease.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: nikgaukroger on February 19, 2019, 01:34:14 PM
Having a friend who uses a pole-lathe regularly for living history demos I asked him about using one for a sarissa length spear shaft. Basically no was his view.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 19, 2019, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on February 19, 2019, 01:34:14 PM
Having a friend who uses a pole-lathe regularly for living history demos I asked him about using one for a sarissa length spear shaft. Basically no was his view.

Although we have not considered the (mediaeval) pole lathe for the (Hellenistic) sarissa.  But worth knowing, so thanks, Nik.

Quote from: PMBardunias on February 19, 2019, 01:29:46 PM
I preface this by saying I have never tried to lathe a spear, but I have done a table leg. I think it comes down to diameter. I have a hard time imagining how you damp the vibrations down in a 20' shaft that is less than an inch in diameter in some places without a long series of rings and a crap load of grease.

This would presumably also be a problem with a lance lathe.

Some points are emerging from this discussion.

1) The traditional way of making spearshafts involved a man and cutting/planing implements.
2) The lathe is an attractive idea but unsupported by evidence.
3) Masts, spars etc. can be made without lathes by the simple but time-consuming sixteen-side method.

We might wish to add the societal dimension.

The obvious way to make a pikeshaft using traditional methods would be to have two men work on the length rather than just one.  In the days of Philip II, this is perhaps how things were done.

Enter Alexander, exit Alexander and enter the Hellenistic monarchies.  These are rulers who have access to engineers with the kind of skills which created the Antikythera mechanism, and who also perhaps have a dearth of colonists with traditional spearshaft-making skills.  The temptation to devise a new means of production for pikes which are now almost three times the length of the traditional doru would be strong.

So I think they could have.  This of course does not prove whether they did or did not, but I am reluctant to dismiss the idea.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 19, 2019, 11:06:57 PM
Patrick:

Lances, at least those that have shapes that look like lathe work, are very thick compared to sarissa.  I would like to see a Medieval lathe for one of these. You can find online contraptions that modern lathe workers use to work on long poles, they invariably use some sort of cuff or wheels on ball bearings to allow the shaft to spin while supporting it close enough to the working site that there is no crazy vibration.  If you, as my liege, told me I had to use a lathe to make a jousting lance, I would take a long log, the width of the fat section around the grip, lathe out the grip section, then finish the rest with a draw knife and spoke shaves to avoid ever spinning a narrow diameter shaft.

It may not be obvious, but the problem with vibration is that you get all sorts of crazy gouging into the wood you are working. So maybe a mixed early lathe, later finishing it could work, but I can say that the initial removal of wood from the shaft is much easier than when you start to become afraid that each cut could take too much.  I admit to having screwed up shafts by taking a bit too  much, then taking a bit too much more later in fixing the screw up. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 20, 2019, 07:47:28 AM
Quote from: PMBardunias on February 19, 2019, 11:06:57 PM
You can find online contraptions that modern lathe workers use to work on long poles, they invariably use some sort of cuff or wheels on ball bearings to allow the shaft to spin while supporting it close enough to the working site that there is no crazy vibration.

Point taken - I am wondering how much vibration there would be in, for example, a water-powered lathe with disengagement and speed gears.  And whether a sliding 'working cuff' which travels with the cutter or abrader would do the business of vibration damping.

My nascent engineering knowledge suggests that if the pole is supported at its vibratory 'nodes' the vibration will be almost non-existent because the resonance will be drained off at source.  This is basically the rings/cuffs-and-heap-of-grease arrangement.  If instead the cutter/abrader comes with its own cuff which travels up and down the line, my understanding (right or wrong) is that it effectively dampens the resonance before it can begin.

I must confess my own minimal experience of lathes is limited to computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines, which leave very little room for either vibration or operator error (except in programming!).

QuoteIt may not be obvious, but the problem with vibration is that you get all sorts of crazy gouging into the wood you are working. So maybe a mixed early lathe, later finishing it could work, but I can say that the initial removal of wood from the shaft is much easier than when you start to become afraid that each cut could take too much.

The precision and accuracy of the process is certainly a consideration.  Letting the lathe do the early heavy work and having a skilled man finish the job does have attractions.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 20, 2019, 09:51:56 AM
On important part of coppice woodland was that it provided shafts for farm tools, so in a lot of armies where men brought their own weapons, they'd also be weapons they'd partially made themselves. They'd provide the arrow shafts, a blacksmith would make the heads, they'd provide the spear and javelin shafts, the blacksmith (or bronze smith or whatever) would make the head.
Whilst to us, making a spear shaft/brush shaft/arrow shafts or whatever seems like a skilled trade, it probably fell within the list of skill sets that most 'peasants' and other rural dwellers had mastered to some level

Making specialist jousting lances with the handguard was probably specialist. Making pikes might have been but it would be more the case of applying an old skill to a bigger project  ;)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 20, 2019, 12:44:47 PM
One might suggest that making wooden tool handles and spear shafts was a skilled job, just that they were common skills in agricultural communities.  If we go back to sarissa making, we will be beyond the lengths available from coppiced wood.  It will have come from split timber from mature trees.  Macedonia was quite famous for good quality timber, so the Macedonians should have had no difficulties sourcing the material. 
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 20, 2019, 06:35:12 PM
Indeed.  I would wonder about split timber, though; given the girth of a fully-grown 25-foot dogwood and the general classical attitude to timber*, I suspect it would have been a case of one tree, one pikeshaft.

*Which we of the present day would regard as unforgivably wasteful, but they had much more timber per head of population to play with.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 20, 2019, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 20, 2019, 06:35:12 PM
Indeed.  I would wonder about split timber, though; given the girth of a fully-grown 25-foot dogwood and the general classical attitude to timber*, I suspect it would have been a case of one tree, one pikeshaft.


A quick reminder they were probably made of ash, which is quite capable of growing large and straight enough to provide several pike shafts.  As a whole dogwood tree was the size of a sarissa, logically, it wouldn't provide enough timber for a sarissa, unless you cut down two small trees and joined them together in the middle.  But this is taking us back on ourselves - we had already discussed the dogwood/cornel misunderstanding and the issue about jointed sarissas.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 01:35:40 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 20, 2019, 12:44:47 PM
One might suggest that making wooden tool handles and spear shafts was a skilled job, just that they were common skills in agricultural communities.

I think Jim's comment about what is a craft/common knowledge was really interesting.

It set my brain wandering...
Would a Sarissa craftsman starve? It's likely given the intermittent history of war that generations would go by with very little demand for new sarissa. Obviously punctuated by periods of high to urgent demand.

Then I started wondering...
In this period (or any other, but particularly pre-Roman) what was the average number of times during a lifetime that an average soldier was actually put in harms way. It's got to be a really really small number. How many times in a lifetime did your average Greek citizen have to put on his bronze and turn out for a phalanx. Less than once i'd guess. For some unlucky buggers in some periods it would have been an annual event, but most of the time...

Then in increasingly extravagant tangents...
Should this impact our understanding as to how good "on average" a soldier would have been at doing anything. I.e. not very for the simple reason of lack of practise?

Thanks Jim.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: PMBardunias on February 21, 2019, 02:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 01:35:40 AM
Then I started wondering...
In this period (or any other, but particularly pre-Roman) what was the average number of times during a lifetime that an average soldier was actually put in harms way. It's got to be a really really small number. How many times in a lifetime did your average Greek citizen have to put on his bronze and turn out for a phalanx. Less than once i'd guess. For some unlucky buggers in some periods it would have been an annual event, but most of the time...

This speaks to a possible bottleneck in production of things like sarissa, dory's, or aspides.  In the case of aspides, which were finished on a lathe, it could be that the workshops that made them also made other things like lyres or even large bowls for example.  But even so, it does mean that these weapons probably had an elevated cost when they were needed in large quantities.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Jim Webster on February 21, 2019, 07:18:29 AM
I suspect that with the Sarissa, the Macedonian government had some stocks, just to get round the possibility of shortage. We know that some 'sub-Hellenistic' states did hold stocks. Wasn't it one of the later Jewish kings got into trouble with the Romans because of the amount of weaponry he had squirreled away?

With regards to how good ancient soldiers were, I suspect they started from a higher baseline of competence than we manage. Pretty much every young boy in a Greek city would have thrown javelins if only chasing hares etc.
But the general lack of training and drill is probably why they kept things simple. The advantage of a phalanx is that the vast majority of participants don't need all that much experience. The comparative success of various hastily raised 'slave phalanxes' or the Egyptians at Raphia would seem to indicate that many years combat experience weren't necessary for competent performance.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 21, 2019, 09:47:38 AM
Concerning length and frequency of service (and this is off topic but the whole thread is off topic) - it depends. For the Hellenistic period (which is all I can speak for) some soldiers might be on permanent active duty (the guardsmen, Peltasts, Argyraspides etc) but the bulk of the phalanx would only be called up occasionally, and major pitched battles were once in a generation things. There would be constant low level conflicts though, 'enough to keep the men in practice without exhausting them' as someone (Polybius?) said of Philip V/Perseus' army. At a guess I would say the call up was rotated by region and age group to give everyone a go though I don't think there's any evidence (the mobilisations we hear of are the maximum effort ones before a major campaign). Plus there were mercenaries who did soldiering for a living. And Philip/Alexander's Foot Companions/Hypaspists/Argyraspides got 40+ years of active service.

I don't think I agree that phalanx fighting didn't take much training. Maybe better to say it didn't take much training to do to a basic level, but it took a lot of training (and/or experience) to do well. The slave phalanxes got beaten. The Egyptian phalanx is an anomaly, but there was a crash training programme before Raphia so their training was recent if not long term.

Concerning weapon manufacture - yes Hellenistic kings made weapons centrally and stockpiled them. What the breakage rate of sarissai might have been I don't know, but probably rather low. But while a specialist sarissa-maker might have starved, there probably weren't any - think the lyre-turner-and-shield-maker of Aristophanes (Birds). Someone who could whittle a pole for a sarissa could also whittle a javelin or a hoe or a rake or an axle or an oar or a chair leg or whatever.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 21, 2019, 09:59:06 AM
QuoteWould a Sarissa craftsman starve? It's likely given the intermittent history of war that generations would go by with very little demand for new sarissa. Obviously punctuated by periods of high to urgent demand.

This depends on how we see the production process to an extent.  If we imagine sarissas could only be turned out in armouries with big specialist  lathes, then presumably sarissa making was on the jd of some armoury craftsman, who could do other stuff when not making sarissas.  If they were made using common wood-working techniques, sarissa-makers could be itinerant contractors who worked with local woodworkers in fulfilling orders.  Or maybe the work was done as needed by local woodworkers because it didn't need any special skills, so these men made other stuff when not making weapon staves.  You can ask whether there were specialist sarissa head makers or sauroter makers or whether these were made by people with general skills in metal working that were generally used for more peaceful purposes.  I'm sure there is evidence of this stuff out there somewhere.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 21, 2019, 10:55:05 AM
Which all suggests royal armouries (as does Jim's mention of the 70,000-sets-of-armour-collecting Hasmonean monarch) and retained craftsmen.  Such gentlemen could produce and stockpile at leisure, allowing immediate replacement of losses in all but the most disastrous circumstances (in which event it is unlikely there would be the men to use additional replacement items).  Such sarissa makers would not starve; nor, as Anthony indicates, would they be limited to sarissa manufacture.  The royal armouries would gradually and steadily produce a variety of weapons (and armour, and shields) on a keep-the-craftsmen-up-to-skill-peak basis rather than through rushed mass production.  This would suffice for normal wear-and-tear replacement and creation of a limited or on occasion not-so-limited stockpile (rememebr how in c.279 BC Nicomedes of Bithynia was able to arm considerable numbers of Galatians at a moment's notice?).  If rushed mass production were ever required (and equipping the Egyptian phalanx prior to Raphia is the only instance I can think of where this might have been the case) there would have been a fair amount of slack capacity available.

Anyone in a permanent professional post would keep up his skills by regular practice (or find his employment terminated), and this would also go for phalangites at the sharp end: the ordinary phalangites might have turned up for drill only once or twice a year when not campaigning (although they did seem to go on campaign quite frequently even if this only rarely culminated in a battle) but the Argyraspides and their equivalents seem to have been full-time soldiers, always ready and by implication always training.

The existence of crack professional phalangite bodies would serve a double purpose: they would act as both a demonstration unit and as a standard of emulation for the ordinary phalangites.  Regarding the skill level of the latter, one might note that even today six weeks of training per year is considered to suffice for a modern territorial soldier (with a few refreshers at weekends) and this level of training and rehearsal - in the presence of the kingdom's best - was presumably also available for the average katiokoi (colonist) or domestic phalangite.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 21, 2019, 09:59:06 AM
  I'm sure there is evidence of this stuff out there somewhere.

The truth is out there ... :)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: RichT on February 21, 2019, 09:47:38 AM
There would be constant low level conflicts though, 'enough to keep the men in practice without exhausting them' as someone (Polybius?) said of Philip V/Perseus' army.

I'm not sure I buy this. Admittedly I have no evidence to bring to bear...  ;D but it does sound like a historian's (Polybius?) throw away line.

The maths of constant low level conflict seems problematic though. How often do you want to/can you practice something that results in 10% lethality? If you practice something just annually - once a year, that results in 3% lethality, half your adult men will die prematurely from "practice". The maths of practicing something potentially lethal, is a problem.

I am not suggesting that there are no forms of non-lethal practice. I am just picking on Polybius.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 21, 2019, 11:12:44 AM
Might I suggest that the topic has shifted from off-topic sarissa discussion to off-topic conversation?  However, I think it is a really interesting topic, so perhaps we can shift it to a topic of its own?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 21, 2019, 10:55:05 AM
Anyone in a permanent professional post would keep up his skills by regular practice (or find his employment terminated), and this would also go for phalangites at the sharp end: the ordinary phalangites might have turned up for drill only once or twice a year when not campaigning (although they did seem to go on campaign quite frequently even if this only rarely culminated in a battle) but the Argyraspides and their equivalents seem to have been full-time soldiers, always ready and by implication always training.

If you mean keep up their skills/become crack troops by actually participating in lethal combat, then I don't think this can be true.

You can't have a lot of practice without also a lot of death. And that is unsustainable, in anything but the short term.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 21, 2019, 11:29:22 AM
There seems to be an echo in here, which is nice, if redundant.

Quote
I am not suggesting that there are no forms of non-lethal practice. I am just picking on Polybius.

You leave poor Polybius alone!

I suspect the problem is with the lethality figures. Beating up on a few Thracian tribesmen would probably be fairly non-lethal for the phalangite. Plus in societies with endemic violence, everybody living to a ripe old age wasn't expected.

It's an interesting question though. Other periods had high rates of service and high lethality (any prolonged war in the gunpowder era must have had very high lethality - yet they happened).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 12:16:42 PM
Quote from: RichT on February 21, 2019, 11:29:22 AM
I suspect the problem is with the lethality figures. Beating up on a few Thracian tribesmen would probably be fairly non-lethal for the phalangite.

Two things then to consider. If its not potentially lethal, is it good practice?
And if we want to say yes, than we have to rely on an enemy generously lining up to be scythed down regularly.

Quote from: RichT on February 21, 2019, 11:29:22 AM
It's an interesting question though. Other periods had high rates of service and high lethality (any prolonged war in the gunpowder era must have had very high lethality - yet they happened). 

Absolutely! But only over relatively short periods of time.
Last century Japan got in a lot of practice, but 4% of the population died. Obviously there are all sorts of things wrong with that analogy, but its just for the purposes of illustrating you can't through 4% of your population away every 5 years.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: RichT on February 21, 2019, 12:31:25 PM
Well at Issus the phalanx lost 120 men out of 9000 (1.3%) and was thought to have had a particularly bad day. A phalanx that didn't run away was a pretty safe place to be. I suspect that practice in getting killed wasn't particularly valuable, practice at killing was a bit more useful, and practice at marching, camping, drill, obeying orders, not being frightened by battlefield noise, handling the sarissa, route marching, building camps etc etc was most useful of all. Punitive expeditions against Thracians wouldn't have required the Thracians to stand still and be skewered to still be useful from a training point of view. I agree that major win or lose pitched battles every year would not be sustainable.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 21, 2019, 06:23:05 PM
Quote from: Dangun on February 21, 2019, 11:15:13 AM
If you mean keep up their skills/become crack troops by actually participating in lethal combat, then I don't think this can be true.

Skill is more a matter of training and orientation than participating in lethal combat, as Richard has mentioned.  In any event (as Richard has also pointed out), classical period phalanx combat does not appear to have been particularly lethal, at least for the winner.

QuoteYou can't have a lot of practice without also a lot of death.

I would suggest that practice is what you do before you go into battle.  Battle puts practice into - erm - practice, as it were.

Troops who experience several battles, a few sieges/assaults and (although this was probably rare for phalangites) occasional smaller actions develop better coordination and cohesion, not to mention confidence.  This turns them into veterans, who are usually very effective in battle.  But trained recruits who have never seen a weapon lifted in anger can still be quite effective because of their training - the Egyptian phalanx at Raphia, for example.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 21, 2019, 11:12:44 AM
Might I suggest that the topic has shifted from off-topic sarissa discussion to off-topic conversation?  However, I think it is a really interesting topic, so perhaps we can shift it to a topic of its own?

As soon as I know what the topic is actually going to be, yes. ;)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on February 21, 2019, 06:35:16 PM
QuoteAs soon as I know what the topic is actually going to be, yes. ;)

It would appear to be about the value of training and experience, particularly in a Greek/Hellenistic context.  Though this last may just be because it hasn't got on to Romans yet :)
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Dangun on February 22, 2019, 02:02:17 AM
Quote from: Patrick on February 21, 2019, 06:35:16 PM
As soon as I know what the topic is actually going to be, yes. ;)

I don't think the efficacy of training or experience is doubted.
I think the more interesting question is: How much combat experience did the average soldier have? I am positing the answer: very little.

Quote from: Patrick on February 21, 2019, 06:35:16 PM
In any event (as Richard has also pointed out), classical period phalanx combat does not appear to have been particularly lethal, at least for the winner.

This essential seeks to avoid the maths, by saying there is an inexhaustible supply of foreigners willing to die to give me experience.
Take a really simple case, two adjacent Greek city states who don't like each other. Pick your lethality numbers, maybe 3% for the victor and 10% for the loser? There is no way that a population could sustain annual practice, its too lethal. So I think that most of an army, most of the time, had no combat experience. But then periodically you have an unlucky age cohort who accumulate a lot of experience and probably have their demography and economy wrecked for a generation because of it.

There might be some excellent direct evidence that suggests otherwise?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Patrick Waterson on February 22, 2019, 09:15:22 AM
As we are settling into the question of training vis a vis combat effectiveness (among other considerations), we shall continue in this thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3827.0;topicseen).
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on May 01, 2019, 12:31:16 PM
Returning briefly to the topic of sariisa making, I have found a description of Swiss 16th century pike making.  As suspected (by most of us, anyway), no lathes were involved.  The stave was roughly shaped with woodworking tools then (this is the bit none of us expected) passed through a metal die to ensure it was even.  Presumably, Hellenistic craftsmen were used to wire-drawing dies but I wouldn't know whether they could manage to scale this up.

Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 01, 2019, 12:33:00 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 01, 2019, 12:31:16 PM
Returning briefly to the topic of sariisa making, I have found a description of Swiss 16th century pike making.  As suspected (by most of us, anyway), no lathes were involved.  The stave was roughly shaped with woodworking tools then (this is the bit none of us expected) passed through a metal die to ensure it was even.  Presumably, Hellenistic craftsmen were used to wire-drawing dies but I wouldn't know whether they could manage to scale this up.

Interesting. Any links?
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Erpingham on May 01, 2019, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 01, 2019, 12:33:00 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 01, 2019, 12:31:16 PM
Returning briefly to the topic of sariisa making, I have found a description of Swiss 16th century pike making.  As suspected (by most of us, anyway), no lathes were involved.  The stave was roughly shaped with woodworking tools then (this is the bit none of us expected) passed through a metal die to ensure it was even.  Presumably, Hellenistic craftsmen were used to wire-drawing dies but I wouldn't know whether they could manage to scale this up.

Interesting. Any links?

I read it in a book.  But I was searching for parallel material.  Here though is an illustration

(http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=32978&stc=1)

The original description is in Johannes Stumpf Swiss Chronicle 1586 edition, Book 9.
Title: Re: Wielding a sarissa overarm
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 01, 2019, 12:59:51 PM
They must have had some comparable method. The spears from the Alexander Mosaic look pretty precise, with some subtle tapering.

(https://i.imgur.com/MSnbihi.jpg)