Wielding a sarissa overarm

[Duncan Head]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Mark G]

wasn't there a fashion in the Greek world at one point for adopting Thracian stuff, to look a bit more exiting and tough?

[Duncan Head]

(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, 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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[PMBardunias]

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.

[PMBardunias]

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.

[Erpingham]

Paul, did you make your calculation based on a straight or a tapered sarissa?

[PMBardunias]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

[PMBardunias]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

Sounds good to me.

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

[PMBardunias]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am constantly learning new things every time I pick up a weapon.

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

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.

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?

[PMBardunias]

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