What is the point of 16 ranks in a pike phalanx?

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Duncan.

Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

The 12-cubit version seems to weigh in at around 9 pounds of weight for 18 feet of wood.  If we take 0.5 lbs per foot of wood as a working figure, we might try estimating the weight and configuration of a counterweighted sarisa, such as might be used by a 16-rank phalanx.


In the absence of clear guidelines I suggest the following, based on instinct and a bit of mechanics, for a 21' (14-cubit) weapon:

1) The point of balance could be at the right hand (3' from the butt).  This allows the left hand to control the shaft, which would be be useful for changing between upright, angled and level positions and holding the sarisa in these positions.

2) Ergo, the butt plus 3' (1.5 lbs) of wood needs to balance 18' (9 lbs) of wood plus the spearhead.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 7.5 pounds (9 minus 1.5) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Assume a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead and the butt has to weigh 8.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 8.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 20 lbs for the sarisa.


If the point of balance is at the left hand, the figures change as follows:

1) The right hand now controls the shaft, which leaves the left hand as a pivot, perhaps a better arrangement as it also has a shield to manage, though potentially more tiring to hold upright.

2) The butt plus 6' (3 lbs) of wood has to balance the spearhead plus 15' (7.5 lbs) of wood.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 4.5 pounds (7.5 minus 3) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Again assuming a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead, the butt has to weigh 5.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 5.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 17 lbs for the sarisa.


This obviously differs somewhat from the Vergina components, which may relate to a different weapon.

[Erpingham]

Here are Delbruck's figure for a 6.5m/21ft sarissa for comparison :

Shaft (seasoned ash, tapering 5cm diameter to 3cm diameter) 5.6kg/12.3lb
Head 0.27kg/0.6lb
Counterweight 2.4kg/5.3lb

Total weight 8.27kg/18.2lbs.

Delbruck, incidentally, notes both pine and cornel wood are denser than ash, so the weapon would be heavier if using these woods.

[Duncan Head]

Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

Sekunda ("The Sarissa", Acta Universitatis Lodziensis - Folia Archaeologica (23) 2001) argues for ash. He points out that Theophrastus says that the male cornel/dogwood grows "as high as the longest sarissai", but doesn't actually say that the wood is used for making sarissai. He argues ash is far more suitable, but I can't recall at the moment whether he has a specific citation for it or not.

[Duncan Head]

He argues ash is far more suitable, but I can't recall at the moment whether he has a specific citation for it or not.

Here we go:

The Macedonians by custom shake ash sarissai.
fraxineas Macetum vibrant de more sarisas

Sekunda goes on to say:

Statius is a most unsatisfactory source for information on weaponry, being much given to mentioning items of military equipment as improbable as bark shields etc., but this remains our only piece of evidence for the wood of the shaft of the sarissa from ancient sources.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Duncan.   Unfortunately there are quite a few ash species, and Arrian (I.15) refers to Companions using 'xustois kraneinois' (dogwood lances), making one wonder if there was a good reason for not using the sturdier dogwood for the sarisa.

Having a quick look through the Perseus frequency list for 'kraneinos' indicates that Xenophon (Horsemanship 12.12) recommends "two Persian javelins of cornel wood" in place of "the spear with a long shaft, seeing that it is both weak and awkward to manage"; in Hellenica III.4.14. when Agesilaus' cavalry charge the Persians. "When they came to a hand-to-hand encounter, all of the Greeks who struck anyone broke their spears (dorata), while the barbarians, being armed with javelins (palta) of cornel-wood, speedily killed twelve men and two horses."  Herodotus' (VII.92) Lycians and Pausanias' (I.21.5) Sarmatians both use cornel-wood bows.

None of which necessarily helps to establish what the sarissa was made from, but it does seem that dogwood was regarded as a superior wood for weaponry purposes.

[Duncan Head]

Yes, Arrian mentions cornel xysta, and Xenophon has Persian cornel palta, and Theophrastus himself says that the heartwood of the "female" cornel tree is useless for akontia (implying that the "male" tree was so used; but no-one mentions cornel-wood sarissai. Sekunda thinks that the strength of cornel is valuable for shorter weapons, but for sarissai:

(a) cornel is too heavy. Fine for shorter weapons, but Markle's calculations reckon 9+ pounds for a 15-foot cornel-wood shaft (without head or butt) whereas 17th-century sources cite a 17-foot German pike at 7 lb and a 16.5 foot Dutch example at 5.5 - probably both ash, as he cites other C17 sources for ash pikes, not clear if these figures are just for the wood or if spearheads are included;

(b) cornel is rarely long enough to make a pikeshaft in one piece; Theophrastus says that the "male" cornel is "at most 12 cubits, the length of the longest sarissai..." - so rarely long enough even for 4th-century sarissai let alone the later 14- or 16-cubit jobs;

(c) "... the stem up to the point at which it divides (into branches) not being very tall" - so the straight trunk length is even shorter.

(I'm not sure he's correct in using (b) and (c) as separate arguments, or if Theo is saying that the tree is at most 12 cubits up to the point where it divides.)

In contrast "The ash is without equal among European trees for providing long straight timbers without faults or flaws in the grain".

[Patrick Waterson]

Which may bring us back to the famous 'joining sleeve' ... it would be nice if the original Head conclusion turned out to be right after all!

I would regard the jury as still being out on this one.  On the one hand, ash has a long and honourable history of providing shafts for some quite long weapons (not least Achilles' spear); on the other, dogwood (cornel-wood) seems to be the shaft of choice for really tough, heavy-duty woodwork.

Then again, we have Xenophon's bending/snapping Greek cavalry spears and the bending pikeshafts of our bold German reconstructuralists.  Either the type of ash was too soft in each case (and a harder variety would have sufficed) or ash simply was not up to the job in any of its available varieties.

A comparatively thicker ash shaft would of course provide greater strength and resilience, but this would seem to lose the weight advantage of ash over dogwood.

I begin to wonder if perhaps sarisai may have been made in both ash and dogwood versions.  The latter would, given Theophrastus' height strictures (which pretty much coincide with the examples in my garden), require a shaft joined in the middle for later Successor pikes, whereas ash could in theory supply pikeshafts of any desired length.  The advantage of having sarisa shafts produced in either material would be that they could probably be made to a standard weight and length with little to choose in terms of tensile strength between a thicker ash or thinner dogwood shaft.  This is of course pure hypothesis.

Polybius is unfortunately quiet on this subject, which in his time would have been so universally known that he would not have felt the need to detail it.

[Duncan Head]

Which may bring us back to the famous 'joining sleeve' ... it would be nice if the original Head conclusion turned out to be right after all!

It's the original Andronicus conclusion, to be fair. Sekunda doesn't discuss the "sleeve" in that article. I have seen various other suggestions as to what it might be.

I begin to wonder if perhaps sarisai may have been made in both ash and dogwood versions.  The latter would, given Theophrastus' height strictures (which pretty much coincide with the examples in my garden), require a shaft joined in the middle for later Successor pikes, whereas ash could in theory supply pikeshafts of any desired length.  The advantage of having sarisa shafts produced in either material would be that they could probably be made to a standard weight and length with little to choose in terms of tensile strength between a thicker ash or thinner dogwood shaft.  This is of course pure hypothesis.

It's possible. I regard Statius as fairly strong evidence that some sarisai were made of ash, but he doesn't prove that they always were.

[Erpingham]

It's possible. I regard Statius as fairly strong evidence that some sarisai were made of ash, but he doesn't prove that they always were.

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

[Patrick Waterson]

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

A good question.  If we take the standard interpretation of Nahum, then some variety of pine was apparently used for this purpose by the Assyrians:

"The shields of his soldiers are red; the warriors are clad in scarlet. The metal on the chariots flashes on the day they are made ready; the spears of pine are brandished*." - Nahum 2.3

*u.e.brshim.erolu. literally: "the fir trees are shaken"

Pine is generally considered a bit soft for spearshafts, but firs and spruces seem to have fulfilled the role in various parts of Europe.  Apparently, though, one of the Schoeningen spears (actually javelins), the oldest weapon shafts known to exist (they were found in a lignite mine and are estimated to be 300,000 years old), is made from pine.

So there is some basis for considering pine as a material.  I suspect that spruce or even fir might be preferable, though.

[andrew881runner]

Incidentally, is there any evidence for the use of pine?  Delbruck, as I've said, considered ash, cornel and pine.  Was this speculation on his part or had he some evidence to back it up?

A good question.  If we take the standard interpretation of Nahum, then some variety of pine was apparently used for this purpose by the Assyrians:

"The shields of his soldiers are red; the warriors are clad in scarlet. The metal on the chariots flashes on the day they are made ready; the spears of pine are brandished*." - Nahum 2.3

*u.e.brshim.erolu. literally: "the fir trees are shaken"

Pine is generally considered a bit soft for spearshafts, but firs and spruces seem to have fulfilled the role in various parts of Europe.  Apparently, though, one of the Schoeningen spears (actually javelins), the oldest weapon shafts known to exist (they were found in a lignite mine and are estimated to be 300,000 years old), is made from pine.

So there is some basis for considering pine as a material.  I suspect that spruce or even fir might be preferable, though.

I have worked with wood for some time and I can tell you, pine is not a wood useful for making the shaft of a weapons. You can make it but it will splitter very quickly. There are many better woods, stronger enough.

[gridnash]

I think Polybius has got his arithmetic wrong. If a sarissa is 14 cubits long (about 21 feet), and 4 cubits of it project backwards (about 6 feet), then the second rank must be at least 6 feet behind the first. If not, they will most likely suffer very painful injuries to their knees or thighs.

I think you've misread it. Polybios says:

these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front

So you've got about two cubits between the left hand and the right, and only two cubits projecting behind you.

Which (if the files are perfectly lined up) goes neatly beside the man behind you anyway, not into his legs.

I can believe files being perfectly lined up on a drill square, but not in a melee against a vigorous and determined enemy. With all the jabbing and lunging of live combat, I would expect people to get out of line very quickly, in which case anything like a sharp butt spike would be a very nasty health hazard to friendly troops. (Incidentally, another question is what on earth is the point of a sharp and fluted butt spike as in the Vergina collection? It's completely useless as a counterweight, so what other purpose did it serve?)

Thanks, Duncan.

Naturally our friends at hetairoi.de decided to use ash instead of dogwood for the shafts and the results are a bit bendy.

The 12-cubit version seems to weigh in at around 9 pounds of weight for 18 feet of wood.  If we take 0.5 lbs per foot of wood as a working figure, we might try estimating the weight and configuration of a counterweighted sarisa, such as might be used by a 16-rank phalanx.


In the absence of clear guidelines I suggest the following, based on instinct and a bit of mechanics, for a 21' (14-cubit) weapon:

1) The point of balance could be at the right hand (3' from the butt).  This allows the left hand to control the shaft, which would be be useful for changing between upright, angled and level positions and holding the sarisa in these positions.

2) Ergo, the butt plus 3' (1.5 lbs) of wood needs to balance 18' (9 lbs) of wood plus the spearhead.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 7.5 pounds (9 minus 1.5) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Assume a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead and the butt has to weigh 8.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 8.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 20 lbs for the sarisa.


If the point of balance is at the left hand, the figures change as follows:

1) The right hand now controls the shaft, which leaves the left hand as a pivot, perhaps a better arrangement as it also has a shield to manage, though potentially more tiring to hold upright.

2) The butt plus 6' (3 lbs) of wood has to balance the spearhead plus 15' (7.5 lbs) of wood.

3) The butt thus has to weigh the difference of 4.5 pounds (7.5 minus 3) plus the weight of the spearhead.

4) Again assuming a one-pound (smaller Vergina-type) spearhead, the butt has to weigh 5.5 pounds.

5) This would give a total presumed weight of 5.5lbs butt + 1 lb spearhead + 10.5 lbs wood = 17 lbs for the sarisa.


This obviously differs somewhat from the Vergina components, which may relate to a different weapon.

This is exactly the kind of calculation I was hoping to do. The greeks may have been brilliant counterweighters, but the question is how big a counterweight do you need, and how heavy is the sarissa once the counterweight is installed? Patrick has very helpfully addressed these questions. I looked up my old maths books to refresh my memory on Newtonian mechanics and it seems that Patrick's method is not quite right. You need to 'take moments' about the point of balance, which means taking account of the leverage exerted by forces acting at a distance from that point. We have four forces as follows: (i) the weight of the counterweight at the butt; (ii) the weight of timber between the butt and the right hand; (iii) the weight of the timber in front of the right hand; (iv) the weight of the spear point. We assume the timber weights act at the mid-point of their respective lengths. The equation you need is as follows. If the unknown weight of the counterweight is x lbs, and we measure lengths in feet, we need x * 3  +  1.5 * 1.5 to be equal to 9 * 9 + 1 * 18. This means x = (81 + 18 - 2.25)/3 lb, which comes to 32.5lb. Added to the weight of the rest of the weapon (11.5lb according to Peter), this gives us a sarissa of 44lb. This is heavy. If anyone fancies a quick bit of re-enactment, I'd suggest a quick trip to Wickes or B&Q, where it will only take a minute to appreciate the weight of a 25kg bag of sand, which is not much heavier.

Things are easier for the poor soldier if he balances his sarissa in his left hand. Here we have x * 6 + 3 * 3 = 7.5 * 7.5 + 1 * 15. This means x = ( 56.25 + 15 - 9)/6 lb, i.e. counterweight weighs a much more reasonable 10.375lbs and the whole sarissa weighs only about 22lbs. However, if we still insist that only 3ft of sarissa should be projecting behind the soldier, the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

I was really inspired by the German reconstructors. It would be really great to read their eventual report of how a number of sarissophoroi would fit together, but even the exercise of trying to make a single sarissa shows (surprisingly) that 3cm of ash is too floppy at the length required and the tapered design seems a lot more promising as a viable weapon. Unfortunately, the above calculations are a lot more complex with tapered shafts, so I have not attempted them.

[Patrick Waterson]

I looked up my old maths books to refresh my memory on Newtonian mechanics and it seems that Patrick's method is not quite right. You need to 'take moments' about the point of balance, which means taking account of the leverage exerted by forces acting at a distance from that point. We have four forces as follows: (i) the weight of the counterweight at the butt; (ii) the weight of timber between the butt and the right hand; (iii) the weight of the timber in front of the right hand; (iv) the weight of the spear point.

Simon is right about taking the mid-point (sorry, chaps), but in fact we need only two 'forces': the mid-point of butt-to-point-of-balance and the mid-point of sharp-end-to point-of-balance.  However splitting each of these into a separate 'force' for the wood and for the metal should give the same result, not to mention making it easier to arrive at 'x' (the unknown weight).

We assume the timber weights act at the mid-point of their respective lengths. The equation you need is as follows. If the unknown weight of the counterweight is x lbs, and we measure lengths in feet, we need x * 3  +  1.5 * 1.5 to be equal to 9 * 9 + 1 * 18. This means x = (81 + 18 - 2.25)/3 lb, which comes to 32.5lb. Added to the weight of the rest of the weapon (11.5lb according to Peter), this gives us a sarissa of 44lb. This is heavy. If anyone fancies a quick bit of re-enactment, I'd suggest a quick trip to Wickes or B&Q, where it will only take a minute to appreciate the weight of a 25kg bag of sand, which is not much heavier.

Things are easier for the poor soldier if he balances his sarissa in his left hand. Here we have x * 6 + 3 * 3 = 7.5 * 7.5 + 1 * 15. This means x = ( 56.25 + 15 - 9)/6 lb, i.e. counterweight weighs a much more reasonable 10.375lbs and the whole sarissa weighs only about 22lbs. However, if we still insist that only 3ft of sarissa should be projecting behind the soldier, the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

As luck would have it, I have a personal benchmark for using a 40-pound 'polearm'.  Having had to cut down a mountain ash which was growing outside my bedroom, I could not resist giving the tidied-up trunk a weigh-in (40 lbs) and a run through some pike manoeuvres.  While the item itself was indeed heavy, holding it at the point of balance (with the left hand) made it surprisingly easy to carry and, astonishingly, effortless to change positions between upright, sloped and level.  I could even charge quite easily with it, although stopping in a hurry was a bit less easy.

Having carried 30-pound sacks of cat litter earlier in life, I was really surprised that a 40-pound log-pikeshaft about 12' in length was so easy to manage.  Conversely, trying to hold/carry it not at the point of balance made it almost impossible to handle.

the poor fellow will be holding a weight of 22lbs at a distance of 2 or 3 feet from his body, so the weight will feel a lot more. Try it with a heavy briefcase or shopping bag sometime: it's roughly equivalent to holding 5 laptops at arm's length!

Actually it is not like that at all: the upper arm from shoulder to elbow rests on the chest and takes about 95% of the load; the distance from the body is only a foot or so.  Distance between hands is still about 3' because the right hand is level with or just behind the body.

I can believe files being perfectly lined up on a drill square, but not in a melee against a vigorous and determined enemy. With all the jabbing and lunging of live combat, I would expect people to get out of line very quickly ...

But would there be any 'jabbing and lunging'?  Macedonians seemed to go in for a straight everyone-together advance letting the points and momentum do all the work without wasting energy on 'foyning', which would indeed mess up a formation.  Given the impetus of the men (especially with the files behind adding a bit of push) and the weight and sharpness of the weapon, the opponent would be thoroughly penetrated if he added the weight of his own charge or just pushed back otherwise, judging by what happened to the Romans at Cynoscephalae and Pydna.

At Atrax, where a phalanx defended a gap in the wall, the impression Livy gives is that the Macedonian pikemen just stood there in formation and the Romans completely failed to make any impression on the wall of pike points before them.  No jabbing, no lunging, just steady patience.

Anyway, to move on to one positive aspect that seems to be emerging, I think Simon and I would both conclude that the point of balance should be the left hand, and that 22lbs looks like a realistic weight for the sarisa.

(Incidentally, another question is what on earth is the point of a sharp and fluted butt spike as in the Vergina collection? It's completely useless as a counterweight, so what other purpose did it serve?)

That is something I wondered, too: it may belong to another weapon, not a pike.  One wonders about the 'logkhe' Arrian places in the hand of the somatophylax (inner circle bodyguard) in Alexander's tent in the occasion of Cleitus' death (Arrian IV.8 ).  A 'logkhe' is usually considered to be a dual-purpose 6' long throwing/melee weapon.  The designation may cover the kind of short spear that might be expected to be in the hand of a bodyguard in a tent, even quite a large tent.  Such a weapon would find a butt-spike very useful, or at least the holder would, as it would allow him to rest the end on (or in) the ground during his shift.

Assuming it was a dual-use weapon, the flutes on the butt spike would act in much the same way as feathers on an arrow, keeping it steady in flight.

[Erpingham]

Although using a completely different technique, Renaissance pikemen could effectively use 17-19ft pikes with only three feet behind the shoulder and with no counterweight.  This suggests we should be cautious arguing from body mechanics that Macedonians couldn't do it with counterweighted 22 ft pikes.

On foyning (aka pike fencing), I agree.  As Sir John Smythe says, foyning opens the formation out - not good.  Straight thrusting, though, is a different matter.  Smythe recommends a unified thrust coming into contact.  While this by no means means that Macedonians did this, we need to distinguish the two techniques.

Smythe, who had an opinion on everything, also recommends use of the lighter, stiffer ash, not the heavy, saggy kind.  I'm guessing he is talking about seasoned against green timber.  Again, this may have been an issue for our Hellenistic subjects and their pike weights.  Note Delbruck's reconstruction uses seasoned wood and still achieves a weight above 18lbs.

[gridnash]

At Atrax, where a phalanx defended a gap in the wall, the impression Livy gives is that the Macedonian pikemen just stood there in formation and the Romans completely failed to make any impression on the wall of pike points before them.  No jabbing, no lunging, just steady patience.

Probably for a different thread, but if pila were ineffective against massed infantry standing in a confined space protected only by body armour, small round shields and a number of thin wooden poles, in what conceivable circumstances could they be effective? This is particularly puzzling given that most popular sets of wargame rules for this period seem to grant pilum throwing Romans a substantial advantage over pikemen in the first bound of melee.

Patrick's experiments with his mountain ash provide valuable insights, but I would still really like to see a couple of rugby teams' worth of blokes form up in a phalanx and demonstrate the awesome power of sarissai in action. You would imagine some enlightened organization might generously fund such a worthwhile research project.