sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hoplite, Hypaspists, Lance, Phalanx, Pike (weapon), Sarissa

Mine is Bigger Than Yours: The Development and Implementation of the by Philip II and

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 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 conflict. During the , mankind used crude made of , , and stone as both tools and . Much later, during the Age, soldiers made use of metal to clad themselves in suits of during conflicts. Finally reaching the Age, technological advancements in the truly took off. This paper will address how Philip II and Alexander the Great designed and implemented the sarissa in their 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 . An investigation into the transformation of the Macedonian 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 developed for the Macedonian army to expand his empire across the Mediterranean. This paper will demonstrate that the sarissa was an influential 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 was the hoplite . 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 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 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, δόρυ (doru), was the main weapon used by Greek 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 σαυρwτηρ (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 , : 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 όπλον (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 or other that might have been launched at the phalanx. This will provide an interesting contrast in the next section where the writing of is discussed alongside the modern perception of the battles of . The only tactic that was used in conjunction with the hoplite phalanx was that of ambushing. Tarn provides examples of ’ use of an ambush to flank an enemy while he was on campaign in Arcanania.6 While Thessaly had its renowned , 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, 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 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 'Υπασπιστης (), 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 δορυ 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 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 was eighteen feet long.11 The lengths of these 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. The earliest evidence for the introduction of the sarissa came when Philip fought the Thebans at Chaeronea. The only ancient source that suggests Philip introduced the sarissa to the infantry comes from Diodorus Siculus, but his wording refers only to the phalanx and does not specify the improved phalanx of the Macedonians.14

10 Christopher Matthew. "The Length of the Sarissa." Antichthon 46 (2012): 79-100.

11 Minor M., III. "The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor." American Journal of Archaeology 81, no. 3 (Summer 1977): 323.

12 Matthew. An Invincible Beast. 397.

13 Minor M. Markle III., "Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon." American Journal of Archaeology 82, no. 4 (Autumn 1978): 483.

14 Diod. 16. 3. 2 4

At Chaeronea, Philip used the sarissa and took on the Sacred Band of Thebes who were one of the most prestigious fighting forces in the world at the time. This was achieved after the Sacred Band defeated the Spartan hoplites at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC despite being heavily outnumbered, ~10,000 to ~7,000.15 The Battle of Chaeronea deserves special focus as it was one of the turning points in history for the Macedonian Empire and it is accepted that the outcome of this battle enabled Philip to assert his dominance over the Athenians, ushering in an era of Macedonian control over the Mediterranean.16 When the battle began. One of main pieces of information that came out of the battle comes from . The Theban Sacred Band was present at Chaeronea and was the most elite group of units that the Thebans possessed.17 Plutarch writes that it was Alexander who engaged the Sacred Band.18 There is evidence found in graves at Chaeronea that would in fact suggest that the majority of the Sacred Band was indeed eliminated in this battle.19 Alexander took the sarissa that his father introduced to the Macedonian troops and continued to improve his army. Since the sarissa had already been introduced, the Macedonian soldiers under the control of Alexander were already trained in the use of the sarissa as a cavalry spear. Considering that when Alexander started accompanying his father into battle, he was given control of the cavalry, Alexander knew what the sarissa was capable of and how effective he could make it on the battlefield. The Alexander mosaic found at Pompeii displays that Alexander clearly used the sarissa in his fights against the Persians. The mosaic also puts on display the weaponry and armour that was in use by the Persians at that time. While the mosaic is certainly a Roman work dated around 100 BC, it still holds value as an example as it is believed to be a recreation of a Greek painting contemporary to the time of Alexander.20 The length of the Persian spears that are visible are clearly shorter than any of those belonging to the Macedonians. Since the Persian soldiers that Alexander was facing had a weapon that was far shorter than their adversaries, it is easy to see how the Persians lost the battle. If the Persians wanted a chance to win, they would have to get inside the range of multiple sarissae to even attempt to use their spears. It would be futile to try and attack the front line of Macedonian soldiers in order to win the battle. In the opinion of Matthew, once Philip came into power, he implemented the changes to the phalanx that Macedonian soldiers had inherited from their neighbouring Greek city-states, including the introduction of the sarissa spear. Matthew argues that the sarissa was split into

15 Philip A. G. Sabin, Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 118.

16 Cawkwell, Phillip II, 178.

17 Plutarch, “” Parallel Lives, Heinemann, 18.

18 George Cawkwell, Philip II of Macedon. Faber & Faber, 1978, 148.

19 Paul A. Rahe, "The Annihilation of the Sacred Band at Chaeronea." American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 1 (January 1981): 86.

20 Susan Woodford, The Art of Greece and Rome, (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 67. 5 different sections and was not one solid piece like the typical δορυ spear. This enabled the troops to move easily around the varied landscapes that they would encounter while conquering the Greeks with the cumbersome sarissa but acknowledges that there is still an ongoing debate among scholars.21 While Philip may have introduced the sarissa into Macedonian training, this does not guarantee that it was used in battle until spearheads themselves were found at the site of Chaeronea. Markle maintains that since the Macedonians did not have the same set class structure to provide soldiers for the army, it meant that Philip would have had to finance the army by himself.22 This is a different situation than what previous arrangements in Greece, such as during the Classical Era, when the state took no responsibility for arming its soldiers, so whatever arms and armour a family could afford is all that was brought to .23 This also meant that it was the families of the wealthy that served as hoplites which was about a third of the adult able-bodied male population.24 When it was first introduced, the hoplite spear was meant to be a spear for the summer soldiers raiding nearby villages. When the professionalization of the army took place in , a standardization of arms and weapons was instituted among soldiers. No longer were soldiers required to spend their own money on arming themselves for battle. This professionalization allowed the army to function more effectively, with every soldier bearing the same arms and armour. After the sarissa was introduced, was adapted to complement this new spear. These tactics include the hammer and anvil technique that was used in conjunction with the Thessalian cavalry that Alexander adopted.25 While we are still left in the dark about much that happened in the ancient world, when artifacts manage to survive the test of time it only adds to the level of scholarship that can be achieved. The wonderful thing about the study of antiquity is that new evidence and opinions are constantly emerging which can change the outlook of the field.

21 Christopher Matthew, An Invincible Beast Understanding the Hellenistic -Phalanx at War. (Barnsley: Pen & Military, 2015), 43-4.

22 Minor M. Markle III., "Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon.", 483-97.

23 Azar Gat, War in Human Civilization (Oxford University Press, 2006), 296.

24 Ibid., 296.

25 Matthew. An Invincible Beast, 342. 6 1

Bibliography

Adcock, Frank Ezra. The Greek and Macedonian art of war. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1957. Cartledge, Paul. Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World. New York: The Overlook Press, 2006. Cawkwell, George. Philip II of Macedon. London, United Kingdom: Faber & Faber, 1978. Ellis, J. R. "Alexander's Hypaspists Again." Historia: Zeitschrift fÃr Alte Geschichte 24, no. 4 (Winter 1975): 617-18. Accessed November 22, 2017. Everson, Tim. Warfare in : arms and armour from the heroes of Homer to Alexander the Great. Stroud: Sutton Pub., 2004. Gat, Azar. War in Human Civilization. Oxford University Press, 2006. Hammond, N. G. L. "Training in the Use of a Sarissa and its Effect in Battle, 359-333 B.C." Antichthon 14 (1980): 53-63. Homer. Iliad. Translated by Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Manti, Peter. "The sarissa of the Macedonian infantry." The Ancient World23:30. Accessed November 22, 2017. issn: 0160-9645. Markle, Minor M., III. "The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor." American Journal of Archaeology 81, no. 3 (Summer 1977): 323-39. Accessed November 22, 2017. Markle, Minor M., III. "Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon." American Journal of Archaeology 82, no. 4 (Autumn 1978): 483-97. Accessed November 22, 2017. Matthew, Christopher. "The Length of the Sarissa." Antichthon 46 (2012): 79-100. Matthew, Christopher. An Invincible Beast Understanding the Hellenistic Pike-Phalanx at War. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2015. Milns, R. D. "Philip II and the Hypaspists." Historia: Zeitschrift fÃr Alte Geschichte 16, no. 4 (September 1967): 509-12. Plutarch. Parallel Lives, "Pelopidas" Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. London: Heinemann, 1920. Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Military & Naval Developments. Chicago: Aries Publishing, 1930. Rahe, Paul A. "The Annihilation of the Sacred Band at Chaeronea." American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 1 (January 1981): 84-87. Sabin, Philip A. G. Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Woodford, Susan. The Art of Greece and Rome. Cambridge University Press, 1982. Worthington, Ian. Philip II of Macedon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.