Mine is Bigger Than Yours: The Development and Implementation of the Sarissa by Philip II and Alexander the Great Christopher Giampaolo Acknowledgements I would like to thank my family and friends, especially my father, for supporting me throughout my University career. I would like to thank my professors for giving me the assistance and skills to continue to pursue my academic pursuits. I would like to thank the Guelph Classics Society for their dedication to the Classical Studies program and for giving me the opportunity to publish this paper. !1 Technology’s gradual advancement throughout history has consistently influenced and improved the efficiency with which it has been weaponized and applied in human conflict. During the Stone Age, mankind used crude tools made of wood, bone, and stone as both tools and weapons. Much later, during the Bronze Age, soldiers made use of metal to clad themselves in suits of armour during conflicts. Finally reaching the Iron Age, technological advancements in the military truly took off. This paper will address how Philip II and Alexander the Great designed and implemented the sarissa spear in their armies to aid the expansion of their empire. To begin, warfare before the development of the sarissa will be investigated, which will include the arms, armour, and tactics of the Classical Greek hoplite. An investigation into the transformation of the Macedonian army under the reign of Philip II will follow, including accounts spanning the period of Philip II’s time spent as a hostage in Thebes to the Battle of Chaeronea; how this period was important to the development of the sarissa will be examined. An explanation of the nature, function, and design of the sarissa will follow, and the final section will be an exploration into when Alexander took over the throne from his father and used the technology developed for the Macedonian army to expand his empire across the Mediterranean. This paper will demonstrate that the sarissa was an influential weapon that enabled Alexander the Great to conquer the Mediterranean and the Middle East, forming one of the largest empires of the ancient world. The main battle formation used in Classical Greece was the hoplite phalanx. While it was not the most adaptable formation, in terms of maneuvering over variable terrain, it was still the most effective military formation, since for hundreds of years, these men were not professional warriors but merely campaigning over the summertime in between harvests.1 According to Tarn, we know the basics of the hoplite formation consisted of two opposing sides, stacked eight men deep and as wide as needed, pushing against each other until one side broke.2 There were no real tactics to speak of as the only way to get past the enemy’s wall of shields was to either overrun them in the push or exploit the last man in the line. Cawkwell, however, does add to this and suggests that another potential tactic would take place in the initiation of the skirmish. Both sides would charge at each other, probably in a similar style to the stade sprint at the Olympics, and clash shields in the attempt to knock down and overrun the other side.3 As far as hoplite weaponry is concerned, a fair amount is known about the dimensions and use of one of the main weapons in antiquity. The hoplite spear, "#$% (doru), was the main weapon used by Greek hoplites with the standard length of the spear measuring eight feet long.4 With one-inch diameter staff, the hoplite spear would weigh in the range of two to four pounds. Fixed to one end was a leaf-shaped spearhead made of iron. On the other end a butt spike, also called the lizard-killer, or &'%$w()$ (sauroter), which served multiple purposes. Such as a counter balance for the weight of the spearhead in the front, and a backup weapon should the 1 W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military & Naval Developments. Aries Publishing, 1930. 2-3. 2 Tarn, Hellenistic Military, 3. 3 George Cawkwell, "Orthodoxy and Hoplites." The Classical Quarterly 39, no. 2 (1989): 375. 4 Paul Cartledge, Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World. The Overlook Press, 145. !2 spear have broken or lost its main head. The butt spike could also be used by troops in the rear of the formation to finish off wounded enemies on the ground as the front-line advanced forward. This spear would be wielded in the right hand of the hoplites in an underhand grip for marching and stabbing, while an overhand grip would be used while in the tight phalanx formation. Since the spear was small and light enough that it could be held either way in one hand, this allowed the hoplites to hold their #*+,- (hoplon) shield, in their left hand. The tightness and closeness of their formation was crucial to their success. If the line was broken, the hoplites would have to concede defeat and retreat. Since each soldier was responsible for guarding the man to his left, none were free to fight on alone for personal glory as any crack in the line could be exploited by an enemy phalanx.5 The phalanx formation was especially expected for the front line to enforce, as the men close to the rear of the formation were expected to be pushing the front ranks forward and dispatching any enemy soldiers that may have survived now struggling on the ground. These men were also likely in charge of deflecting any arrows or other projectiles that might have been launched at the phalanx. This will provide an interesting contrast in the next section where the writing of Homer is discussed alongside the modern perception of the battles of Troy. The only tactic that was used in conjunction with the hoplite phalanx was that of ambushing. Tarn provides examples of Demosthenes’ use of an ambush to flank an enemy while he was on campaign in Arcanania.6 While Thessaly had its renowned cavalry, all three types of units – light, heavy, and cavalry – were not fully utilized to their maximum potential until Alexander the Great. Evidence shows that the phalanx formation existed even at the time of Homer. In books 13, 15, and 16 Homer's language accurately describes a hoplite phalanx.78 These phrases include “packing themselves together like a wall” and “shield pressed against shield, helmet to helmet, man to man.”9 This is a contrast to the modern perception of great heroes charging off on their own. Book 20 and 21 of the Iliad describe Achilles; loss of control in a fit of rage and killing enough Trojans to clog up a river. This would have been more difficult to accomplish had Achilles remained in formation or had the Trojans been locked into a rigid phalanx system. Another possible explanation for Achilles’ solo combat style might be that he was considered invincible after being dipped in the river as a baby, so perhaps it was not necessary for him to be guarded by other men as the Trojans would have been unable to kill him, at least without great difficulty, since his skill in battle was unsurpassed by all. While scenes like this seem to be the in the majority of the Iliad, it also does not necessarily mean that the hoplite phalanx was never used during the ten years that occur during the poem. 5 Cawkwell. Orthodoxy and Hoplites. 375. 6 Tarn, Hellenistic Military, 4. 7 Homer, Iliad 13.130-154. 8 Homer, Iliad 15.312-328. 9 Homer, Iliad 16.210-215. !3 Minor M. Markle III, a leading scholar of the sarissa and its history, has given very detailed specifications for each of the weapons and shields used by the hoplites and the '.*'&*/&()0 (hypaspists), shield-bearers. The longest and most common spear that the Macedonians used was eighteen feet long and weighed fourteen and a half pounds. At a tomb in Vergina, a perfectly preserved lancehead was found measuring twenty inches, compared to the spearhead of the ",$% which was almost eleven inches. A spear the length and weight of the sarissa suggests that both hands would have been used to wield the spear properly. However, as it was originally introduced as a cavalry spear, there were ways to hold the sarissa with one hand that will be discussed below. Having to wield the sarissa with both hands while on foot also meant that the Macedonian infantry had to change how they held a shield. Instead of wielding their shield with their left arm, they would have carried a smaller shield that protected the most vital body parts. This shield was usually hung by a strap around the soldier’s neck and shoulders that would hang in front of them. The lengths as well as materials are recorded by ancient sources, providing Markle with the information he needed to make his own calculations.10 Theophrastus provides evidence that the eighteen-foot-long spear was the longest used by the Macedonians with other sources like Asclepiodotus recording that the shortest of the Macedonian cavalry lance was eighteen feet long.11 The lengths of these spears allowed the first five ranks to stick forward out of the formation making it very difficult for anyone to break through to the front line of the spear- bearers. The men behind the first five lines would then need to advance with their spears pointed in the air to avoid stabbing their companions. It has also been theorized that having these spears in the air would fill up the space above the formation providing some protection from incoming projectiles without having to use their shields.12 Markle discusses that when Philip first introduced the sarissa, it was used as a cavalry lance and not given to the infantry.13 Using the sarissa on horseback made logical sense given its immense length; one hand held the spear, either in an underhand grip or in an overhand grip to give the wielder the possibility to strike either over-hand or under-hand, with the possibility of balancing the rear of the spear on the shoulder.