Talk:Sarissa

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Could we maybe get a picture?

What is the evidence for the length of a Sarissa being 13-21 Feet? Polybius indicates a length of 14-16 Cubits or 21-24 Feet. Phillip II is supposed to have increased the length of the Macedonian Hoplite Spear, but the sources conflict as to by how much and the original length is itself unknown. Also, what is the evidence for this weapon having been divided into two pieces on the march? I have heard this assertion before, but I think it was a modern supposition, rather than derived from Ancient Sources or Archaeological Evidence. M.J.Stanham

According to research that the creative assembly carried out prior to making the pc game Rome: Total war the sarrisa was 6-7m in length.I don't know about dividing it though. Wardhog 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states, "The back rows bore their pikes angled upwards in readiness, which served the additional purpose to deflect incoming arrows." I think this needs supporting evidence.

Polybius makes this assertion:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

I have to admit that I can't really imagine quite how it works, though. M.J.Stanham

Sorry to repeat this but according to research that the creative assembly carried out prior to making the pc game Rome: Total war a group of spear points together could effectivly spin arrows off balance or turn them around so that the pointy end points the wrong way. Wardhog 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works if you consider size. As an infantryman, you would probably not notice anything if your comrades were killed, but as a commander even a small amount of slowed or deflected arrows would result in significantly less fatal casualties. Even clipping the blade of the spear would have lowered the velocity of the arrow.

Would this tactic have been more useful when besieging a city or assaulting a fortified position? Or did the Persians try to thin out the Macedonian Phalanx with arrows? It was my impression that Darius fought the Macedonian's more intimately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polybius did make this claim, but most modern historians that I've read (including Hanson) are skeptical. I think it deserves mentioning, but should be qualified i.e. "Polybius claims that..." or "the Sarissa was thought to deflect arrows." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.64 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was on Rome: Total War, then it must be real... just like History Channel.

Haha, I don't know who wrote that last comment, but I agree. Since when is a video game a proper source? Nojamus (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the link to the picture of a college professor holding a sarissa is actually misleading. It's taken with wide-angled lens and has very distorted perspective. The sarissa appears longer than it really is. I'd suggest either the removal of the link or changing the commentary. Zoran M 15:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a citation for this, and it seems misleading. We know short blades were used by phalangites of all stripes for centuries by the fourth century BCE but spears remained a principle weapon of soldiers of foot well after the Sarissa. The Gladius wasn't even introduced to Legions until the 3rd Century BCE and the short sword was certainly not yet a stock weapon. The spear preceeded it.

The description just seemed extraneous to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some work, maybe we could just merge it with the current article Pike? Otherwise can someone help me with the Pike article as the introduction states that the Pike was used "by Europeans from the early middle ages" which totally ignores the Sarissa and contradicts this article. I've tried editing it myself but it gets reverted every time. Master z0b (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexander gradually reduced the importance of the phalanx, and the sarissa, as he modified his combined use of arms, and incorporated 'Asian' weapons and troops."

Alexander didn't reduce the importance of the phalanx at all. Alexander's tactics were exactly the same as Phillip's. Sarissa-weilding phalangites in a tight formation held the enemy in place, while heavy companion cavalry and light tactically flexible troops went around their sides and attacked them from behind. It was a "hammer and anvil". The only thing Alexander did was introduce new troops to fill the latter role. The tactics remained exactly the same throughout the hellenistic era. If anything the importance of the phalanx increased as flanking forces were neglected in favour of simple head-on engagements between the Diadochi. The lack of flanking forces to hammer the enemy against the anvil of the phalanx was the primary reason for the loss of the Battle of Cynoscephalae against the Romans.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the sarissa was important to his overall tactics, but he had to change his tactics as he incorporated more indigenous troops into his army. I think that is what the original author intended. As you can see, however, there are no inline citations, so if you have some better sources, please go ahead and bring them to the table. If you need any help incorporating them, please comment here on the page's discussion. Sadads (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utilizing more than sarissa bearing and other traditional Macedonian troops and mercenaries does not mean that the phalanx of the pezetairoi lost its importance. On the contrary, it held the exact same position it held before Alexander's conquests forming the center of the line and a formidable weapon, much more than simply pinning the enemy, as is usually, and in my humble opinion falsely, proclaimed. Alexander incorporated foreign troops other than Balkan mercenaries later in his campaigns (eg in India), but his tactics virtually remained the same and around the phalanx. Maybe the editor who brought forward that opinion is thinking of Alexander's experimental phalanx, which is not attested to have engaged in battle, in which he mixed Macedonian phalangites with Asian bowmen and javelineers (Arrian explicitly mentions the use of the mesangylon). Undoubtedly, Alexander would have used Asian troops as necessity ordained, but unto his death and his plans to invade Arabia, he is never attested to have utilized manners of fighting different than those he utilized in the beginning of his campaigns. We also have to keep in mind, that Alexander did operate with lighter troops when necessary, sometimes only with cavalry. The phalanx was the core of his army only when it came to pitched battles. GK (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a labile memory does not betray, the Sarissa had its origins in Homer's works; Philip II, when Alexander the Great was under the tutelage of Aristotle, asked for Aristotle to teach Phillip the works of Homer. That's where Phillip got the idea for the Sarissa. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

according to Bret Devereaux. 2601:601:1B80:820:B421:1C07:85B6:F6B4 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the relevant portion of the blog post here for convenience:

1) The wrong wood, the correct wood is probably ash, not cornel – the one thing Connolly gets wrong on this weapon (but Sekunda, op. cit. gets right).
2) The wrong weight, entirely too heavy. The correct weight should be around 4kg, as Connolly shows.
3) Butt-spikes were not exclusively in bronze. The Vergina/Aigai spike is iron, though the Newscastle butt is bronze (but provenance, ????)
4) They could be anchored in the ground to stop cavalry. This pike is 5.8m long, its balance point (c. 1.6m from the back) held at waist height (c. 1m), so it would be angled up at something like 40 degrees, so anchoring the butt in the ground puts the head of the sarisa some 3.7m (12 feet) in the air – a might bit too high, I may suggest. The point could be brought down substantially if the man was kneeling, which might be workable. More to the point, the only source that suggests this is Lucian, a second century AD satirist (Dial Mort. 27), writing two centuries after this weapon and its formation had ceased to exist; skepticism is advised.
5) We’ll get to shield size, but assuming they all used the 60cm shield is wrong.
6) As noted, I don’t think these weapons were ever used in two parts joined by a tube and also the tube at Vergina/Aigai was in iron. Andronikos is really clear here, it is a talon en fer and a douille en fer. Not sure how that gets messed up.

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Honkshoo The Bird Man (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]