Assorted Historical Questions - Gertrude et al, ask them here!

[MeinPanzer]

MP: isn't one of the soldiers assumed to be a cavalryman? his squire holds a small square shield? Perhaps that's just an assumption on Sekunda's part--I'm literally about to walk out the door, so I can't look it up right now.

Sekunda thinks the Perrhaibian was a cavalryman because Thessalians were famed for their cavalry and because there are a few figurines of Harpokrates as cavalryman with a shield that is almost square.

The former logic is totally fallacious - while many Thessalian mercenaries may have been cavalry, obviously not all would have been - while the latter is little evidence considering that small square-shaped shields seem to have been used quite widely by infantry and cavalry in Hellenistic Egypt. I think the fact that Eunostides is depicted on foot with his attendant is stronger evidence that he is not a cavalryman than the evidence mentioned above is that he is one.

Cappadocian/Cilician cav: you're right, when I say kataphraktoi, I'm really just thinking of cavalry who might wear some form of horse armor, such as that from the Persian period. And I think they could be confused as Greeks because they operated in the same circles as the Greeks: they were of the legal status in the courts of Greeks, and one section of the Hellenic army, even if they had Persian names. I think that could easily be a misunderstanding by the author, after all we know that the Cappadocian/Cilician cav were a major part of the expeditions to the south, I figure it could just be a mistake. Its really just a guess, but with the armament described and the link between Agatharchides' imported cavalry for the Ethiopian expedition and the presence of Cappadocian/Cilician cav who first appear and frequently appear in southern expeditions, I figured it was a guess worth making.

That would actually depend on how "fuzzy" we'd like to make the border between Cilicia and Cappadocia and how to properly define the "cataphract". During the late Achaemenid period, a series of reforms especially for the cavalry arm were introduced, and Xenophon mentions in his treatise on horsemanship several recommendations of using the "Persian model"; He not only mentions the so called laminated armour, but various equipment used to furnish the horse, amongst these a breast-plate, a chamfrôn and a parameridia/parapleuridia (Very esoteric debate that I'd rather not indulge in, a lot of boring technicalities), also known in more common terms as the armoured saddle. We have a limited number of depictions of this strange apparatus, amongst these the damaged relief at Bozkir, but some have suggested that it is Lycian in origin. This is to the west of the Cappadocian and Cilician areas, but these areas where quite profoundly Persianized. Especially Cappadocia which had been under heavy Medean influence since the war between Alyattes of Mermnad Lydia and Cyaxares of the Medes.

I'd be inclined to agree with you except for two things. While I could buy Anatolians being confounded with Greeks if they were simply called "Greek" cavalry, as you stated, perhaps referring to their fictive ethnic status rather than their actual origin, I don't think such a case can be made for cavalrymen who are explicitly stated to have been "recruited ... from Greece." The next (also in response to TPC) is that while there may have been some history of limited Persian-style horse armour use among Cappadocians, chamfrons and parapleuridia, etc., there's a huge leap between that defensive equipment and felt garments which "conceal the whole body except for the eyes."

How did the Macedonian soldiers transport their sarrisoi?

As the Sarissa was constructed of two halves and joined by the means of a metal collar, it has been suggested that this allowed the Sarissa to be broken down into two more manageable sections for convenience of transport or on the march.

This is a statement which has been made so often by now that it is almost accepted as fact. Even beyond the difficulties in identifying the Andronikos "sarissa" from Vergina as a sarissa (the one commonly reproduced as a sarissa, with the massive head, the metal sleeve, and the hefty butt; for arguments against this, see Nicholas Victor Sekunda, "The Sarissa," Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica 23, 2001, pp. 13-42), and the issue of such a sleeve significantly reducing the integrity of a long spear, there are numerous practical problems when one actually examines the use of such a sleeve for dis- and reassembly. How does one easily detach and reattach two hefty lengths of wood (at least 7' long each) with a thin metal sleeve without nails (no nail holes were found in the sleeve)? Heating to expand the metal has been suggested, but the amount of time taken to do so after the end of each march would surely have been problematic, not to mention if the phalangites were ambushed on the march.

[bovi]

This is a statement which has been made so often by now that it is almost accepted as fact.

The division of the sarissa sounded reasonable to me when I read it, but I agree with the problems you bring up. Do you think that they marched with the whole pike then? Perhaps pointing the butt down and to the front, resting the thing on the shoulder and pointing it to the sky backwards?

[MeinPanzer]

The division of the sarissa sounded reasonable to me when I read it, but I agree with the problems you bring up. Do you think that they marched with the whole pike then? Perhaps pointing the butt down and to the front, resting the thing on the shoulder and pointing it to the sky backwards?

Yes, that's the way I see it. Early modern pikemen carried their pikes that way, so I see no reason to assume that the Macedonians did it any other way.

[chairman]

That also makes sense if that's the way that the cavalry carried their xystons.

However, if sarrisoi did come in two parts connected by a sleeve, what about a primitive form of the screw, or is there no evidence for this? Also, it's possible that there were several variations on this and that as the sarrisa grew longer, new solutions had to be found, the vergina sarrisa would have come from the ealry use of the sarrisa.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, so please correct me. It's late at night and the subject ambigous.

Chairman

[Megalos]

There is no need for a screw if a sleeve (made out of metal) was used. The sheer weight of both ends would have been enough to keep them in place, when the sarrisa was held ready for the fight.

The sleeve wouldn't even have to be that tight, even if it was a little loose, the weight again at both ends of the sarrisa would be enough to hold it in place. This would facilitate the quick and easy construction of the full length Sarissa.

Here is an example of what I mean (obviously I have exagerated the angles and the size of the sleeve for the diagram):



I should also note that this is by no means fact, just that it is a possibilty.

[MeinPanzer]

That also makes sense if that's the way that the cavalry carried their xystons.

However, if sarrisoi did come in two parts connected by a sleeve, what about a primitive form of the screw, or is there no evidence for this? Also, it's possible that there were several variations on this and that as the sarrisa grew longer, new solutions had to be found, the vergina sarrisa would have come from the ealry use of the sarrisa.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, so please correct me. It's late at night and the subject ambigous.

Chairman

I don't know of any evidence for screw use, but how would you suggest they employed screws in keeping the two portions together even if there was evidence? Keep in mind again that there were no holes in the sleeve in which nails or screws could be inserted.

There is no need for a screw if a sleeve (made out of metal) was used. The sheer weight of both ends would have been enough to keep them in place, when the sarrisa was held ready for the fight.

I've heard this argument, as well, but I think there are a number of factors that would make it impractical. First, there is the fact that the sleeve itself was not all that large and fairly thin, and though I haven't actually seen any results of archaeological reenactments on the issue, I have a hard time believing that an exact facsimile of the sleeve found with the Andronikos spear could be substantial enough to hold the two parts of a 20'+ sarissa together. In addition to this, repeated use would I'm sure render the sleeve loose and the sarissa would sag.

The sleeve wouldn't even have to be that tight, even if it was a little loose, the weight again at both ends of the sarrisa would be enough to hold it in place.

Do you have any practical evidence to support this? From what I've heard, even reenactors who have created sarissas from a single piece of wood have found a significant amount of sag in a sarissa of average length. A sleeve of the dimensions of the Vergina example which wouldn't even be that tight would, I'm sure, cause a significant amount of sag in the sarissa, and thus significantly reduce the integrity of the shaft.

[Foot]

Wasn't part of the thing about the phalanx that the rear ranks held their pikes more vertically. If so I can forsee problems with the sleeve as it would just shift position down due to gravity. Of course if it was attached to the lower-half of the pike that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Still it sounds rather far-fetched to me. Without a proper means to attach it I can imagine a few instances where it would have fallen out during battle. Perhaps cheap pikes were constructed like this (short wood is easier to come by).

Foot

[Megalos]

@MP

Like I said, I have no more evidence for this, just that it isa possibilty.

I Know huge marquee tent poles are made like this (much longer, but also much thicker than a sarrisa), and they are usually held together with a thin alluminium (very soft) sleeve. When lifted from the floor, they are almost impossible to pull apart. For the most part, I've never seen much degradation in the metal, and again the shorter the sleeve, the harder it would be to bend it. Anyway, who's to say that they didn't have numerous sleeves?

@Foot

Even if the sarrisa was at a slight angle to horizontal, the weight at the tip (spear head included) would be enough to hold it together...holding a 21" foot sarrisa perfectly straight would be pretty hard too, without there being some bend toward the ends.

If this technique was used, then there probably were times when it fell apart...bit of a nightmare for the user :)


Interestingly, the integrity of the sarrisa would be much greater if the sleeve technique was used....instead of there being a weak snapping point in the middle like a full length 21" sarrisa, the weight would be much more disspersed if in fact they did use a sleeve...it would act very much like a brace in bridge building.

EDIT: MP, any chance of a pic of the sleeve you talk about? I've never seen it and would be interested to see it. What metal is it made out of?

[MeinPanzer]

Wasn't part of the thing about the phalanx that the rear ranks held their pikes more vertically. If so I can forsee problems with the sleeve as it would just shift position down due to gravity. Of course if it was attached to the lower-half of the pike that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Still it sounds rather far-fetched to me. Without a proper means to attach it I can imagine a few instances where it would have fallen out during battle. Perhaps cheap pikes were constructed like this (short wood is easier to come by).

On your last point, part of the reason why the theory of a sarissa shaft in two parts has become so widespread is due to an oft-misinterpreted quotation from Theophrastos (3.12.2), who states:

The wood of the "male" [cornel] tree has no heart, but it 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 sarissa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall.

This passage has often been taken to mean that the sarissa was made of cornel wood, which causes problems for interpretation since the cornel only ever grew to the maximum length of the sarissa in Theophrastos' day, which was the mid-4th century BC. However, toward the beginning of the 3rd century, the sarissa increased in length, and so many people have assumed that in order to make a pike of that length, it would be necessary to make it of two pieces joined together. This thinking is plain wrong, as Theophrastos was merely using the sarissa to provide something for his contemporary reader to relate to when explaining the cornel's height, and not stating that the sarissa was made from cornel wood.

Sekunda points out that the most likely type of wood used in constructing sarissas was ash. Historically, this was the most common wood used during the early modern period, and Pliny (H.N. 16.24.63) states that "In Macedonia there is a very large type of ash tree making a very flexible timber," while Sekunda cites examples from the First World War where for the construction of planes "pieces of [ash timber] were required up to 32 feet (!) in length with straight and even grain throughout the whole length, and free from the slightest defect, to make spars and longerons." The Spanish in early modern times planted whole groves of ash trees right beside one another so that the trees were forced to grow rapidly and straight, and they furnished their pikemen in this way.

@MP

Like I said, I have no more evidence for this, just that it isa possibilty.

I Know huge marquee tent poles are made like this (much longer, but also much thicker than a sarrisa), and they are usually held together with a thin alluminium (very soft) sleeve. When lifted from the floor, they are almost impossible to pull apart. For the most part, I've never seen much degradation in the metal, and again the shorter the sleeve, the harder it would be to bend it. Anyway, who's to say that they didn't have numerous sleeves?

EDIT: MP, any chance of a pic of the sleeve you talk about? I've never seen it and would be interested to see it. What metal is it made out of?

Here is a picture of it (just found it briefly scanning the internet) with measurements (albeit in Russian!):



Note that while the head was 51 cm long, the sleeve is a mere 17 cm in length.

About the tent poles: those are sleeves made to exacting measurements with modern machinery and with high-quality materials to hold together poles made of lightweight materials. The Vergina sleeve was effectively a rectangular iron sheet which was wrapped into a cylindrical shape.

Interestingly, the integrity of the sarrisa would be much greater if the sleeve technique was used....instead of there being a weak snapping point in the middle like a full length 21" sarrisa, the weight would be much more disspersed if in fact they did use a sleeve...it would act very much like a brace in bridge building.

I think it's the complete opposite of what you are arguing. With a long one-piece shaft, the sarissa would have stayed much straighter and would therefore have had less of a chance of bending and snapping, while if you have two separate pieces joined together, especially with a sleeve as small as the one from Vergina, that would create a weakspot which could buckle easily.

[Megalos]

You could be right. I think it would need some exhaustive scientific testing.


That "sleeve" is interesting. I can't speak Russian at all, but are ther last figures shown it's diameter? If so, 3cm is not very wide...what was the average girth of a sarrisa?

If that is the diameter, I am very sceptical as to wether that is indeed a sleeve for a sarissa.

EDIT: диаметр does indeed mean diameter.

[Megalos]

Sorry for the double post, but I just noticed the split down the middle of the sleeve. This would allow it to expand when the wood was pushed into it.



These are the only decent images I could find of a replica sarrisa, there is no way that the sleeve pictured would fit this monstrosity, however the technique used is interesting.

Note that in the replica pics, they have indeed used a joint in the middle (well more toward the end they are holding actually), showing it does work.

[Foot]

whats interesting about the tube is that it widens at both ends. That seems to be an odd way to make it. Wouldn't a straight tube hold the sarissa better?

Foot

[Megalos]

Well it depends Foot. If it tapers at the end, it would be easier to get the pole into it, then jam it down into the tube to hold it tight I suppose.

I can imagine two makedonians at either end pushing against each other, trying to get it into it.


EDIT: Also the widening at the ends, would allow for more play and bend, which would result in less damage to the metal also.

[MeinPanzer]

Sorry for the double post, but I just noticed the split down the middle of the sleeve. This would allow it to expand when the wood was pushed into it.


These are the only decent images I could find of a replica sarrisa, there is no way that the sleeve pictured would fit this monstrosity, however the technique used is interesting.

Note that in the replica pics, they have indeed used a joint in the middle (well more toward the end they are holding actually), showing it does work.

Well, it worked with whatever they used to construct it, but it doesn't look to me like the coupler found at Vergina and I somehow doubt that they stringently adhered to ancient materials and methods of manufacture. I'd also be very curious how they connected the two shafts together.

Well it depends Foot. If it tapers at the end, it would be easier to get the pole into it, then jam it down into the tube to hold it tight I suppose.

I can imagine two makedonians at either end pushing against each other, trying to get it into it.


EDIT: Also the widening at the ends, would allow for more play and bend, which would result in less damage to the metal also.

It may have made it easier to get the pole into the sleeve, but such flaring would, again, almost certainly make sagging a problem.

[Parallel Pain]

I have a question.

What are some supports for both sides that at Cannae
a) Hannibal's center broke, and he used his Africans to control the breech by attacking the Romans with them from two sides, then rallied the Gallic troops to re-enter the fighting from the front. As depicted by Adrian Goldsworthy.

or

b) Hannibal's center did not break, but only bent. The Romans pushed the Carthaginian front line so far back that they moved pass the Africans on the flanks. As depicted by mainstream media.

[Dhampir]

IIRC, Polybius related that Hannibal allowed his center to fall back into a crescent shape.

[chairman]

I tend to believe the second proposition, because Hannibal planned ahead, and not only curved his line from the start, but also deepened his center (the center of non-Africans) so that it would be able to withstand the weight of the Roman attack. It is likely that some of the troops were very near to the breaking point, but not enough that the retreat should be considered a rout. If the center had broken and he had been forced to using his Africans to control the situation, the Africans would not have been able execute their orders on the wings, which as it turned out, was the crucial maneuver of the battle. Also, their is controversy as to what kind of soldiers the African were, whether they were similar to EB's African Pikemen, Elite African Infantry or the Liby-Phoenician Heavy Hoplites.

Chairman

[Parallel Pain]

That's not true chairman.

While if the Africans were used to control the center, they can't turn in on the wings, if they were used to control the center, they don't need to be on the wings. They are already sandwiching most of the Roman army at the center between them.

Here's Polybius:

115 the advanced guards were the first to come into action, and at first when only the light infantry were engaged neither side had the advantage; but when the Spanish and Celtic horse on the left wing came into collision with the Roman cavalry, the struggle that ensued was truly barbaric; for there were none of the normal wheeling evolutions, but having once met they dismounted and fought man to man. The Carthaginians finally got the upper hand, killed most of the enemy in the mellay, all the Romans fighting with desperate bravery, and began to drive the rest along the river, cutting them down mercilessly, and it was now that the heavy infantry on each side took the place of the light-armed troops and met. For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.

Here's Livy:

When the battle shout was raised the auxiliaries ran forward, and the battle began with the light infantry. Then the Gauls and Spaniards on the left engaged the Roman cavalry on the right; the battle was not at all like a cavalry fight, for there was no room for maneuvering, the river on the one side and the infantry on the other hemming them in, compelled them to fight face to face. Each side tried to force their way straight forward, till at last the horses were standing in a closely pressed mass, and the riders seized their opponents and tried to drag them from their horses. It had become mainly a struggle of infantry, fierce but short, and the Roman cavalry was repulsed and fled. Just as this battle of the cavalry was finished, the infantry became engaged, and as long as the Gauls and Spaniards kept their ranks unbroken, both sides were equally matched in strength and courage. At length after long and repeated efforts the Romans closed up their ranks, echeloned their front, and by the sheer weight of their deep column bore down the division of the enemy which was stationed in front of Hannibal's line, and was too thin and weak to resist the pressure. Without a moment's pause they followed up their broken and hastily retreating foe till they took to headlong flight. Cutting their way through the mass of fugitives, who offered no resistance, they penetrated as far as the Africans who were stationed on both wings, somewhat further back than the Gauls and Spaniards who had formed the advanced centre. As the latter fell back the whole front became level, and as they continued to give ground it became concave and crescent-shaped, the Africans at either end forming the horns. As the Romans rushed on incautiously between them, they were enfiladed by the two wings, which extended and closed round them in the rear. On this, the Romans, who had fought one battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the Africans. The contest was a very one-sided one, for not only were they hemmed in on all sides, but wearied with the previous fighting they were meeting fresh and vigorous opponents.

As I see it both can be read both ways.

[chairman]

While I might not be completely correct, it might be best to phrase your response less critically next time. Thanks.

What I ment was that Hannibal did not reposition his African infantry when his center retreated. The original questioned was worded so I thought that it was asking whether the Africans moved into position behind the Iberians and Gauls, which does not seem to be the case from the two texts. Instead it seems that the Africans merely left/right faced their lines and attacked the Romans' unprotected flanks. It was after this that the Iberian and Gallic cavalry returned from driving off the enemy cavalry to attack the Romans in their rear.

From Polybius and Livy, it does seem that there was more of rout than is usually thought. However, I still think that Hannibal was in overall control, that he had foreseen if not actually planned the center's distress, and that he was able to control the retreat without having the Africans react directly to the rout, but instead attack. So rather than the halting of the retreat and the Africans' attack coming in subsequent order, I see them as happening almost simultaneously.

My interpretation comes from John Warry's depiction of Cannae in his book "Warfare in the Classical Period", a wonderful resource on these subjects.

Chairman

[Parallel Pain]

Well, now you know.

And I've read that book, and a few others, and I know both views.

What I want is some evidence or arguments for or against a side and if possible its counter-argument.

[lobf]

A sleeve of the dimensions of the Vergina example which wouldn't even be that tight would, I'm sure, cause a significant amount of sag in the sarissa, and thus significantly reduce the integrity of the shaft.

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'd take anything reported by Livy with a big pinch of salt, he's not the most reliable correspondent.

According to Polybius, the Romans in the centre broke the Carthaginian line - that's how some survivors were able to break through and escape the battle.

[Megalos]

Well, it worked with whatever they used to construct it, but it doesn't look to me like the coupler found at Vergina and I somehow doubt that they stringently adhered to ancient materials and methods of manufacture. I'd also be very curious how they connected the two shafts together.

It may have made it easier to get the pole into the sleeve, but such flaring would, again, almost certainly make sagging a problem.

Aye, again this could be correct. I think we could debate this all day and then some. Hopefully some reenactors or some uni will do some scientific tests on this.

If you hear of anything drop me a PM, and I will do the same (I think you are more likely to hear about it first though).


I must say though, that I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, as I had never really given it all that much thought. Thanks for finding that pic for me.


I'll look up those pics I posted with the replica sarrisa in and drop the link to the uni, that they are from to you.


Mega

[QuintusSertorius]

But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

I don't know about that, while it was certainly becoming less necessary to demonstrate absolute adherence to the old forms, Caesar didn't win a corona civica at the siege of Mytilene making cups of tea. Then there were his (completely unauthorised) campaigns against the Cilician pirates and Mithridates as well.

[the_handsome_viking]

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

Please do elaborate.

[MeinPanzer]

I couldn't resist a giggle at this whole quote.

Hehe, I know what you mean. When you think about things from a historical perspective sometimes you don't realize that you just wrote a sentence that uses the words "dimensions of the Vergina," "tight," "shaft," and "sag" in a serious tone.

Megalos: I'll send him an email and get back to you. Thanks for tracking down his information.

[paullus]

i just couldn't believe someone asked for an explanation. someone balked at papyrology the other day...thought I was working with something other than 2000 year old texts.

[lobf]

Please do elaborate.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Dhampir]

You've got to be kidding me.

Please don't elaborate. It might violate forum rules.

[Atilius]

Reproducing part of my original post to I can remember what I said:

All young roman artistocrats would still be interested in a Senatorial career. But at about this time, and for reasons that aren't clear, eligibility for roman magistracies apparently required only perfunctory military service. Cicero served in a staff position for a single year during the Social War and Caesar's early army service was also brief. Both studied in the Greek east, so it looks as if education was being seen as an acceptable (or perhaps superior) substitute for military service at that time.

All? I'm not so certain that's the case, not least because of course there weren't enough magistracies for more than a few to actually achieve some form of office. Furthermore, as the empire grew, there were more profitable opportunities in commerce, for those who were willing to forsake a politican career.

Aspiring to the Senate was not simply an individual choice, but a family project. Continuing failure to secure a seat would be deadly to the entire family's prestige. And if money was the motive, there was no more profitable position than the senatorial office of provincial governor. In principle, the resources of the entire province were under his control. Any publicani or merchants there would be beholden to him.

I don't know about that, while it was certainly becoming less necessary to demonstrate absolute adherence to the old forms, Caesar didn't win a corona civica at the siege of Mytilene making cups of tea. Then there were his (completely unauthorised) campaigns against the Cilician pirates and Mithridates as well.

I said that that Caesar's military was brief, not that he spent it serving tea. (Though he was later rumored to be providing something warm to Nicomedes.) He served with distinction from 80 to 78, but returned to Rome immediately upon learning of Sulla's death. His remarkable actions against his pirate kidnappers, and during Mithridates' invasion of 74 were performed without any military or magisterial authority. In 73 or 72 he was elected military tribune, for a total of 3 years of military service. Eighty years earlier, a Roman aristocrat had to serve in the army for 10 years before he could stand for a quaestorship. Yet Caesar was elected quaestor in 69.

Clearly a significant change had taken place.