Pikes

[Dangun]

[New topic continuing the discussion which began under Macedonian Infantry Shields ...]

A hold with hands only three feet apart feels awkward - are you sure that's how they did it?

No, not at all. I just picked something to keep the maths easy, with the goal of highlighting how unwieldy an "end grip" would be.

But... I politely suggest that 5ft apart seems too wide.
Average arm span is roughly the same as average height - Vitruvian man and all that.
So by implication you are suggesting the arms are spread almost perfectly perpendicular from the body at shoulder height. That seems unlikely.

[Erpingham]

But... I politely suggest that 5ft apart seems too wide.

Yes, that's me making rough estimates again.  However, it must be 4ft to be parallel to the left shoulder and pushing the left hand further out another foot would be comfortable, so somewhere between 4-5ft  dependent on the balance point of the pike would work for me, if anyone is doing the mechanics.  A renaissance pike is nose-heavy compared with a sarissa (smaller head but iron langets to reinforce the first couple of feet and no balancing spike) - don't know the make up of a chang qiang

[Patrick Waterson]

By contrast, I would estimate the weight of a 21' Macedonian sarissa at 22-24 lbs, not least because of the counterweight.

Assuming cornel wood, or ash? Constant-width shaft, or tapering? Large spearhead, or small?

Cornel wood, probably tapering and not sure about the spearhead but inclined to think small, if small means 2 lbs or less.  My reckoning is about 15-16-ish lbs for the shaft and head and 7-8-ish lbs for the counterweight/butt spike.

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

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 rough rule-of-thumb figure of 1 lb of weight per 2' of wooden shaft seems to apply here, with metal bits being extra, and by pro-rating Markle's 12 lbs for a 15' pike we would be looking at about 16 lbs for a 20' pike.  My main assumption - which is where much of the difference originates - is that the butt counterweight would be a lot heavier because the centre of gravity of a 21' sarissa (sarisa if we want the correct Greek spelling) would be 6' from the butt not 11.5' from the butt.

Ergo, throw in the extra 5-6 lbs for the heavier butt counterweight and the original 16 lbs becomes 21-22 lbs.  This seems to work out and might even mean I am not totally talking off the top of my head ...

I think the key element here is that estimates to date do not allow for counterweighting (a 2.78 lb sarissa head and 2.4 lb butt spike is seriously weighted the wrong way).  Add in the counterweight and we seem to be reading from much the same script.

[Erpingham]

Re Cornel wood, figures I have seen suggest it is denser than ash.  However, there is some dispute whether they were made of cornel wood I believe.  The key text seems to be Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 3.12.1-2), if anyone has access.

[Duncan Head]

The Theophrastus text is why cornel is traditionally assumed for the sarissa, yes. What he says is:

Of the cornelian cherry there is a ' male' and a 'female' kind (cornel) ... The wood of the 'male' tree has no heart, but is hard throughout, like horn in closeness and strength; whereas that of the ' female ' tree has heart-wood and is softer and goes into holes; wherefore it is useless for javelins. The height of the ' male ' tree is at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest Macedonian sarisa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall.

However Sekunda's article points out:

- Theophrastus does not actually say that the cornel is used for sarisai (indeed no-one does);
- He does imply that the "male" tree is used for javelins, the "female" being too soft;
- The sarisa is mentioned only as a comparison for the height of the tree;
- And in fact the full description - at most 12 cubits, not very tall before the trunk divides - suggests that very few cornels would be suitable for providing a 12-cubit spearshaft (he doesn't believe in "made in two halves joined by a tube");
- And indeed a Latin poet (Statius, I think) explicitly says that sarisai were made from ash (which is a traditional wood for spears, including Renaissance pikeshafts, and which S argues is much more suitable, and lighter).

I tend to agree, now.

My main assumption - which is where much of the difference originates - is that the butt counterweight would be a lot heavier because the centre of gravity of a 21' sarissa (sarisa if we want the correct Greek spelling) would be 6' from the butt not 11.5' from the butt.

But Markle's figure includes the actual weight of the big winged buttspike found by Andronikos, which almost everyone accepts as a sarisa butt (I think Sekunda may reject it) so I do not think you can be justified in assuming anything heavier.

If the weighting doesn't work, that's just more evidence for a tapering shaft and smaller spearhead (Connolly, Sekunda) and/or a lighter ash shaft (Sekunda).

[Dangun]

But Markle's figure includes the actual weight of the big winged buttspike found by Andronikos, which almost everyone accepts as a sarisa butt (I think Sekunda may reject it) so I do not think you can be justified in assuming anything heavier.

That is absolutely true, which is why I subtracted Markle's estimate of butt-spike-weight from the calculation of per length (of wood only) weight and then added a pike point.

[RichT]

Statius yes:

From NV Sekunda, 'The sarissa',  Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Archaeologica 23, 2001

The ancient Greeks displayed a similar preference for ash for spearshafts.
Homer refers to ashen spears several times (eg. II. 5. 66, 19. 390,
22. 225) and occasional references also appear in later authors (eg. Tyrtaios
frg. 19. 13). As regards the sarissa, Statius, a poet of the first century A.D.,
specifically states that (Theb. 7. 269) "The Macedonians by custom shake
ash sarissai" (fraxineas Macetum vibrant de more sarisas). 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 literature. Given the universal demand for ash for
pikes in the seventeenth century, and the abiding popularity of ash for
spears in Antiquity, his testimony should be accepted. We should note that
Macedonia was well provided with ash in Antiquity (Theophr., Hist Plant
3. 11. 3-4).

Here http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/ is a reconstruction to add to Connolly and Markle and Matthews

[Duncan Head]

Statius yes

Sometimes my memory impresses even me 

[Patrick Waterson]

A few thoughts, albeit not directly relating to Duncan's impressive memory.

1) We may be looking at different varieties of cornel-wood.  If Theophrastus' cornel-wood divides low and does not grow straight, it is unlikely to be the same tree as was used for the 'cornel-wood' xystons of Alexander's Companions (xustois kraneinois, Arrian, Anabasis I.15.5).

2) We have to be at least as careful with 'ash' as with 'cornel-wood'.  As John Smythe indicates, the 'tite and stiffe ashe' would be distinct from the common variety, and if one uses common ash in a spear-shaft one will probably be in for a mild disappointment as happened here.  The tougher and heavier 'mountain ash' - although this itself can be a bit of a blanket designation - would be the variety of choice for shafted weapons, cf. Achilles' spear of 'Pelian ash'.  I am assuming the sorbus family (rowan) is usually meant by this when weaponry is concerned and that the fraxinus species are not, although fraxinus excelsior, the common ash of England, has traditionally been sufficiently highly regarded to use in weaponry.

3) The winged buttspike found by Andronikos (a mere 2.4 lbs or less than the assumed spearhead of a sarissa) would not act as an effective counterweight.  In any event I suspect it actually belongs to a logkhe - along with the spearhead found at Vergina.  An effective counterweight for a sarissa-length weapon would have to be significantly heavier.

I have dogwood (cornel-wood, species unspecified) growing in my garden, and it grows long and straight.  I have not measured the trunks but they are at least twice the height of a man plus something - admittedly not 21' but on the way there.  This makes me really wonder about Theophrastus and exactly what he was describing, perhaps this, the flowering dogwood, although as the entry notes even these if unpruned can grow to 25', coincidentally just right for Polybius' original 24' sarissa.

[Erpingham]

Theophrastus is surely describing the cornel cherry cornus mas? And do we have evidence that sorbus species were used for spears, as opposed to fraxinus?

[Duncan Head]

We may be looking at different varieties of cornel-wood.  If Theophrastus' cornel-wood divides low and does not grow straight, it is unlikely to be the same tree as was used for the 'cornel-wood' xystons of Alexander's Companions (xustois kraneinois, Arrian, Anabasis I.15.5).

I don't agree. If the "male" cornel grows to 18 feet, it shouldn't be impossible to get the 10-12 foot shafts of a xyston from a fair number of specimens. Theo was of course writing in Alexander's lifetime, knows that his cornel grew in Macedon and was used for making spears of some sort; no need to postulate further species.

I am assuming the sorbus family (rowan) is usually meant by this when weaponry is concerned and that the fraxinus species are not, although fraxinus excelsior, the common ash of England, has traditionally been sufficiently highly regarded to use in weaponry.

And "fraxinus" is precisely the word Statius uses, though of course ancient usage need not correspond to modern taxonomy.

The winged buttspike found by Andronikos (a mere 2.4 lbs or less than the assumed spearhead of a sarissa) would not act as an effective counterweight.  In any event I suspect it actually belongs to a logkhe - along with the spearhead found at Vergina.  An effective counterweight for a sarissa-length weapon would have to be significantly heavier.

What you seem to be missing is that neither Sekunda nor Connolly (nor I) accept that Andronikos' and Markle's "assumed" sarisa-head actually comes from a sarisa. The original grave contains the winged butt, the mysterious iron tube, the large heavy spearhead that A and M thought was a sarisa-head, and a smaller, lighter iron spearhead that they assumed was from a separate weapon. C and S argue against this interpretation, because (a) as C points out, the large spearhead is blunt, no sign it was ever combat-sharp, so it may not be a practical spearhead at all; (b) Grattius' Cynegetica refers to huge Macedonian spears with small "teeth", ruling out such a large spearhead (quid, Macetum immensos libeat si dicere contos? quam longa exigui spicant hastilia dentes!). Therefore, the second, smaller head from the Andronikos grave is the sarisa-head.

(Also (c), according to S, the large spearhead is made of bronze, like the buttspike - but I am not sure where he gets this from, as the original Andronikos article says clearly that all parts are iron - http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/bch_0007-4217_1970_num_94_1_2168.pdf )

Since this second lighter spearhead has a smaller socket diameter than the winged butt (or the larger spearhead) the shaft must taper to fit it, which would in turn make the shaft both lighter and balanced further back than A and M's consistent-diameter thick shaft. The reconstruction at hetairoi.de  has a two-part shaft with the front half tapering, but I think C used a one-piece shaft tapering throughout.

The results of both Connolly's and the hetairoi.de reconstructions suggest that, given these conditions, the idea that you need a heavier counterweight than the Andronikos winged butt is in practice simply not true.

So what is the large, blunt, spearhead? Someone, I think perhaps in an earlier discussion on ancmed, suggested that it might be another sarisa buttspike (same socket diameter as the winged one). Sekunda suggests (in his two books on the Antigonids) it's from a ceremonial spear, an emblem of rank - but then he thinks it's bronze, which would look flashier.

[Patrick Waterson]

Ably argued, Duncan, but the reason I consider a counterweight imperative has to do with simple physics and arithmetic.

Polybius tells us that a 21' shaft is grasped at the 3' (right hand) and 6' (left hand) points.  If the sarissa were not counterweighted, it would need the left hand at around the 11.5' point, a difference of 5.5 feet.  Otherwise, with the left hand at 6' along the shaft, assuming a 20' shaft including spearhead, plus a 1' counterweight of x mass to complete the 21' weapon, we would have - pro-rating Markle - a mass of, say, 16 lbs, of which 1/4 plus x is aft of the point of balance and 3/4 ahead of said point.

Hence we have 1/4 of 16 lbs aft of the balance point, i.e. 4 lbs, and 3/4 of 16, i.e. 12 lbs, ahead of it.

x, the counterweight, should thus weigh 12 - 4 = 8 lbs.  This puts 12 lbs aft of the balance point and 12 lbs ahead of it.

Does that make sense?

[Edit:] Given your interpretation that the smaller spearhead is in fact a sarissa head, which I find convincing, and that a tapered shaft is thus likely, we can scale down the counterweight according to the likely saving in weight ahead of the point of balance.  I would however be surprised if we could thus save more than a couple of pounds on each side of the point of balance, which would at least get us down to a 6lb counterweight and a lighter and handier weapon (20 lbs overall rather than 24 lbs).

[Jim Webster]

Also can you coppice Cornel wood? I would assume that they would have people who were ensuring that their cornel grew long and straight rather than just having cavalry units blundering about hoping to find straight trunks

[Erpingham]

Also can you coppice Cornel wood? I would assume that they would have people who were ensuring that their cornel grew long and straight rather than just having cavalry units blundering about hoping to find straight trunks

One of the things I read about Cornel Cherry was that it tended to multi-trunking.  So in theory but, given its reluctance to grow straight without bushing, I think it would be hard to manage.  However, someone would need to work through the arboricultural resources to really answer.

[Dangun]

x, the counterweight, should thus weigh 12 - 4 = 8 lbs.  This puts 12 lbs aft of the balance point and 12 lbs ahead of it.

Unless I misunderstood your estimate...
Wouldn't the counterweight have to be even heavier because it is closer to the right hand than the average distance of the shaft infront of the left hand. Levers and all that.