1 Livy (37.42) goes out ofhis way to specifically state that this was the name of the long Macedonian pike.
2 Excerpta Polyaeni, 18.4
3 Livy, 44.41
4 Plut. Alex. 33
5 Plut. Aem. 19
6 Diod. Sic. 17.4.4
7 M.M. Markle, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armour’ AJA 81.3 (1977) 323
8 J. Pietrykowski, Great Battles of the Hellenistic World (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) viii
9 Xen. Cyr. 2.3.9-10
10 Polyb. 12.25e
11 A.M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1999) 114
12 N. Sekunda, ‘Land Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. Van Wees and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol. I: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 330
13 A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 10
14 C.G. Thomas, ‘What you Seek is Here: Alexander the Great’ Journal of the Historical Society 7.1 (2007) 61
15 Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 10
16 Griffith (Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge University Press, 1935) 322) outlines one of the other problems that researchers encounter when using the archaeological record when he states that ‘there is a certain body of archaeological evidence throwing some light upon the arms and accoutrements of Hellenistic soldiers, but it is both difficult to collect (much of it is unpublished), and of a highly specialised interest’.
17 S. English (The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2011) 16) states that ‘history is very far from an exact science and we can ultimately do no better than make our best efforts in any ancient reconstruction’. However physical re-creation takes us a step closer (almost literally in many regards) to achieving a fuller understanding of an ancient form of combat by placing us in the shoes (or sandals) of the warriors of the past. Such processes then fill many of the gaps left in models based solely on analysis of the traditional source material.
18 For other examples of the use of physical re-creation as a means of investigating aspects of ancient warfare see: C.A. Matthew, A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2012); Markle, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa’, 323-339; R.E. Dickinson, ‘Length Isn’t Everything – Use of the Macedonian Sarissa in the Time of Alexander the Great’ JBT 3:3 (2000) 51-62; W. Donlan and J. Thompson, ‘The Charge at Marathon: Herodotus 6.112’ Classical Journal 71:4 (1976) 339-343; P Connolly ‘Experiments with the Sarissa – the Macedonian Pike and Cavalry Lance – a Functional View’ JRMES 11 (2000) 103-112; W.B. Griffiths, ‘Re-enactment as Research: Towards a Set of Guidelines for Reenactors and Academics’ JRMES 11 (2000) 135-139; N.G.L Hammond, ‘Training in the Use of a Sarissa and its Effects in Battle 359-333 B.C.’ Antichthon 14 (1980) 53
19 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2, 8
20 Asclep. Tact. 2.7
21 Hoplites: see: Polyb. 18.29; phalangites: Polyb. 4.12, 18.28; peltasts: Polyb. 5.23; sarissaphoror, see: Polyb. 12.20; Arr. Anab. 1.14.1; Livy 36.18
22 Diod. Sic. 18.2.3
23 Plut. Mor. 197c
24 πεζοί: Diod. Sic. 19.14.5-8; πυκvότητα: Diod. Sic. 16.3.2
25 Much like the word peltast used by many Greek writers, Livy seems to use the term caetrati interchangeably to mean either ‘skirmisher’ or ‘pikeman’. Indeed Livy (31.36) himself defines the caetrati as ‘what the Greeks call peltasts’. At 35.27 Livy describes caetrati as clearly being skirmishers armed with ‘slings, darts and other light arms’ (cum fundis et iaculis et alio levi genere armaturae). Yet in other places the actions of the caetrati seem to be the actions of pikemen (for example see: Livy 33.15-16, 37.40, 44.41; Plut. Aem. 19; see also: Pietrykowski, Great Battles 230, n.169; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 123; F.W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge University Press, 1940) 291-293; M.B. Hatzopoulos, L’organization de l’armee macédonienne sous les Antigonides (Kentron Hellēnikēs kai Rōmaïkēs Archaiotētos, Ethnikon Hidryma Ereunōn, Athens, 2001) 71-72; E. Foulon, ‘Hypaspistes, peltastes, chrysaspides, argyraspides, chalcaspides’ REA 98 (1996) 53-62; E. Foulon, ‘La garde à pied, corps d’élite de la phalange hellénistique’ BAGB 1 (1996) 17-31. The caetrati are often associated with the pike-phalanx. Yet Polybius also comments on the inflexibility of the pike-phalanx (18.31-32) and how the soldier in the phalanx is of no use in either small detachments or individually (18.32). This then suggests that the caetrati were armed in a manner that was better suited to massed formation fighting – i.e. as pikemen. Walbank (Philip V, 292-293) suggests that while these peltasts/caetrati were pikemen, they were more lightly armed than the regular phalangites. Sekunda (Macedonian Armies after Alexander 323-168BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2012) 33) suggests that they may have been carrying shorter sarissae.
26 This also occurs in many modern works, which contain generalized statements such as ‘the phalanx presented a serried array of spear points’, without considering that the men of the phalanx did not actually carry spears.
1 Marathon: Hdt. 6.117; Thermopylae: Hdt. 8.24; Plataea: Hdt. 9.70
2 For example see the accounts of the battle of Coronea (394BC): Xen. Hell. 4.3.17-19; Plut. Ages. 18.
3 For example see the accounts of the defeat of the Spartans by Athenian light troops at Sphacteria (425BC – Thuc. 4.33-40) and Lechaeum (390BC – Xen. Hell. 4.5.11-17) where a whole morai of Spartans was defeated by light troops; for light troops being able to engage hoplites at a distance see: Xen. Hell. 4.8.33-39; Xen. Anab. 6.3.7-9; for light troops being able to easily flee from hoplites see: Thuc. 4.34; Xen.Anab. 6.3.4.
4 Just. Epit. 8.1.1
5 Harpocration, Lexicon s.v. pezhetairoi (Anaximenes – Jacoby FrGrHist. 72 F4) – Ἀναξιμένες ἐν ᾶ φιλιππικῶν περὶ Ἀλεξανδρου λέγων φησίν. ἔπειτa τoὺς μὲν ἐνδοξοτάτους ίππεύειν συvεθίσaς εταίρους προσηγόρευσε, τoὺς δὲ πλείστους καὶ τoὺς πέζους εἰς λόχους καὶ δεκάδας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀpχὰς δειλὼν πεζεταίρους ὠνόμασεν, ὄπως ἐκάτεροι μετέχοντες τῆς βασιλικῆς ἑταιρίας προθυμότατοι διατελῶσιν ὄντες; on Anaximenes’ history of Philip and Alexander and his other interactions with them see; Diog. Laert. 5.11; Paus. 6.18.2
6 Ael. Tact. Tact. 3
7 Dem. 2.17
8 Theopompus – FrGrHist 115 F348 – Θεόπομπός φησιν ὅτι ἐκ πάντων τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐπίλεκτοι oἱ μέγιστοι καὶ ισχυρότατοι ἐδορυφόρουν τὸν βασιλέα καὶ ἐκαλοῦντο πεζέταιροι; see also: Photius s.v. πεζέταιροι; Etym. Magn. 699.50-51 s.v. Πεζέταιρος; Gabriel (Philip II of Macedonia – Greater than Alexander (Washington, Potomac, 2010) 107) suggests that a passage of Frontinus (Strat. 2.3.2) also refers to Philip and the pezhetairoi. However, Frontinus only refers to Philip’s ‘strongest men’ (fortissimus suorum) and not the pezhetairoi specifically by name.
9 P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (Greenhill Books, London, 1998) 69; see also: N. Sekunda, The Army of Alexander the Great (Osprey, Oxford, 1999) 28; M. Thompson, Granicus 334BC: Alexander’s First Persian Victory (Oxford, Osprey, 2007) 25; A.M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1999) 115; J. Pietrykowski, Great Battles of the Hellenistic World (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 32; B. Bennett and M. Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281BC Vol.II: Battles and Tactics (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 4; A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 259
10 J. Warry, Alexander 334-323BC (Osprey, Oxford, 1991) 14; see also: A. Erskine, ‘The πεζέταιροι of Philip II and Alexander III’ Historia 38.4 (1989) 386
11 W. Heckel, The Wars of Alexander the Great 336-323BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2002) 24; see also: W. Heckel and R. Jones, Macedonian Warrior: Alexander’s Elite Infantryman (Osprey, Oxford, 2006) 31; W. Heckel, The Conquests of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 25; E.M. Anson, ‘The Hypaspists: Macedonia’s Professional Citizen-Soldiers’ Historia (1985) 247
12 Gabriel, Philip II, 54; it is uncertain whether Gabriel then assumes that part of the army was first called the pezhetairoi by the undesignated Alexander of Anaximenes and the term was then applied to the whole phalanx by Philip, or whether, contrary to Anaximenes, Gabriel believes that the term pezhetairoi was first used by Philip. Tarn (Alexander the Great Vol.II (Chicago, Ares, 1981) 141) similarly suggests that it was Philip II who bestowed the name pezhetairoi on the infantry of the phalanx.
13 Erskine, ‘πεζέταιροι’, 392-393
14 Erskine, ‘πεζέταιροι’, 393; Griffith (‘Philip as a General and the Macedonian Army’ in M.B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Ekdotike Athenon, Athens, 1980) 58) suggests that Alexander II created the hypaspists around 370BC. Similarly, Gabriel (Philip II, 71) says that the bodyguard of Philip were also the hypaspists. See also: Anson, ‘Hypaspists’, 246. The validity of the passage of Anaximenes’ which refers to the mysterious ‘Alexander’ as the creator of the pezhetairoi has been the cause of contention for a considerable period of time, as has been the value of Anaximenes himself as a reliable source. As early as the first century BC Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Is 19) described Anaximenes as ‘feeble and unconvincing…good at many things but master of none’. Pausanias (6.18.5) also levelled criticisims at Anaximenes’ credibility. Such comments have carried on to the present day. For a discussion of the nature of Anaximenes’ passage and the creation of the pezhetairoi see: A.M. Anson, ‘Philip II and the Creation of the Pezhetairoi in P. Wheatley and R. Hannah (eds.), Alexander and His Successors – Essays from the Antipodes (Claremont, Regina Books, 2009) 88-98
15 Arr. Anab. 1.28.3; for a commentary on this passage see: A.B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander (Clarendon Books, Oxford, 1998) 170-171. Bosworth, in this work at least, also suggests that Anaximenes is referring to Alexander I in the role of mythologised lawgiver. In a later work (‘The Argeads and the Phalanx’ in E. Carney and D. Ogden (eds.), Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives (Oxford University Press, 2010) 99), Bosworth alternatively offers that the most likely candidate for the Alexander of Anaximenes is Alexander II.
16 Arr. Anab. 1.28.7
17 Arr. Anab. 7.2.1; for a brief commentary on this passage see: Erskine, ‘πεζέταιροι’, 392-393
18 Arr. Anab. 7.11.3
19 For the convincing argument that the pezhetairoi were infantry units raised in Lower Macedonia while the asthetairoi were units from Upper Macedonia see: A.B. Bosworth, ‘ΑΣΘΕΤΑΙΡΟΙ’ CQ New Series 23.2 (1973) 245-253
20 Arrian (Anab. 3.11.8) describes the arrangement of the Companion Cavalry at Gaugamela as: ‘[The] right wing was held by the Companion Cavalry, the Royal Squadron in front; commanded by Cleitus, son of Dropides. In successive order came those of Glaucias, Aristo, Sopolis…Heraclides…Demetrius, Meleager and lastly that led by Hegelochus…The Companion Cavalry as a whole was commanded by Philotus, son of Parmenion.’
21 P.A. Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I of Macedon’ JHS 96 (1976) 151
22 Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I’, 151
23 Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I’, 151
24 Thuc. 2.100
25 N.G.L. Hammond, ‘Training in the Use of a Sarissa and its Effects in Battle 359-333BC’ Antichthon 14 (1980) 54
26 S. English, The Army of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 4
27 Hdt. 6.44-45
28 Thuc. 1.62
29 Thuc. 2.100
30 Xen. Hell. 5.2.38
31 Polyb. 29.21
32 Thuc. 2.100
33 Just. Epit. 8.4.2
34 For example see: Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I’, 153; Bosworth, Commentary on Arrian’s History, 170
35 R. Develin, ‘Anaximenes (“F Gr Hist” 72) F 4’ Historia 34.4 (1985) 494
36 Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I’, 151
37 Diodorus (16.2.5) says that Perdiccas III lost 4,000 men in battle with the Illyrians in 359BC while the remainder, an amount unfortunately not numbered, lost all heart for further confrontation. This reference to surviving members of the army shows that, at this time, the Macedonian military was larger than the 4,000 men who were lost. This further suggests that the loss was considerable, possibly half of Macedon’s forces, but was not ‘total’. Later, Philip II was able to field 10,000 men (Diod. Sic. 16.4.3) – a number which Fuller suggests may have been the size of the Macedonian army as early as 364BC; see: J.F.C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great (Wordsworth, Hertfordshire, 1998) 26. English (Army of Alexander, 72), on the other hand, suggests that Macedon was militarily weak prior to the time of Philip II. How an army possibly 10,000 strong could be considered ‘weak’ is not explained.
38 Brunt, ‘Anaximenes and King Alexander I’ 153; English, Army of Alexander, 4
39 N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman (Duckworth, London, 1980) 26; N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Various Guards of Philip II and Alexander III’ Historia 40.4 (1991) 404
40 Gabriel, Philip II, 61
41 A. Erskine, ‘The πεζέταιροι of Philip II and Alexander III’ Historia 38.4 (1989) 391
42 Plut. Pelop. 25
43 Develin, ‘Anaximenes’ 494; Hammond, King, Commander and Statesman, 25
44 These reforms were the adoption of the aquila (eagle) as the dominant standard of the Roman military, the adoption of the cohort as the basic tactical unit of the legions, and the creation of ‘Marius Mules’ by which each legionary was required to carry his own equipment and rations. These reforms followed on from the ‘head count’ reform of 107BC in which Marius opened up enlistment in the legions to volunteers. See: C.A. Matthew, On the Wings of Eagles: The Reforms of Gaius Marius and the Creation of Rome’s First Professional Soldiers (Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2010)
45 Bosworth, ‘The Argeads’ 97-98
46 Diodorus and Cornelius Nepos are the only writers to give detailed accounts of the Iphicratean reforms. Xenophon’s Hellenica omits any reference to the year 374BC at all. Book six, chapter two of the Hellenica begins with the Peace of 375BC and then moves straight on to Iphicrates’ campaign against Corcyra in 373BC. As such, the details of Iphicrates’ reforms are not covered. Additionally, Xenophon’s Hellenica is noticeably light on coverage of the events in Macedon at this time. Despite covering the history of the Greek world down to 362BC, there is no mention of the reign of Amyntas in the Hellenica after the events of 382BC, Amyntas’ death in 370BC is not mentioned, nor is the entire reign of Alexander II or the rise of Perdiccas III. Consequently, Xenophon’s Hellenica is of limited value for the examination of the rise of the Macedonian state in the mid-fourth century BC. Both Polyaenus and Frontinus, despite devoting a considerable number of passages to Iphicrates, do not mention his reforms either. However, it must be considered that both of these writers were compiling works devoted to the art of strategy and so a discussion of the invention of a particular type of fighting may not have been seen as warranted. Webster (‘In Search of the Iphikratean Peltast/Hoplite’ Slingshot 287 (2013) 5-6) dates the reforms to 373BC or later despite Diodorus clearly dating them to 374BC.
47 Nepos, Iphicrates, 1.3-4.
48 Diod. Sic. 15.44.1-4; Ueda-Sarson (‘The Evolution of Hellenistic Infantry Part 2: Infantry of the Successors’ Slingshot 223 (2002) 24) suggests that the shield of the reformed Iphicratean peltast was oval. This may come from how Diodorus describes the new shield as ‘symmetrical’ (συμμετpoυς). While an oval shield is symmetrical, so too is a perfectly round one. Sekunda (‘Land Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby, The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol. I: Greece, the Hellenistic world and the rise of Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 327) suggests that συμμετpoυς means ‘of the same size’ and that the peltē was the same size as the hoplite aspis but without its distinctive offset rim. This seems unlikely as the bearing of a shield 90cm in diameter would not allow the sarissa (or the Iphicratean pike) to be held in both hands.
49 L. Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Evolution of Hellenistic Infantry Part 1: The Reforms of Iphicrates’ Slingshot 222 (2002) 30-31
50 Fuller, Generalship of Alexander, 42
51 In the years following his reforms, Iphicrates embarked on a naval campaign against the island of Corcyra (see: Xen. Hell. 6.2.10-39). It may be the maritime nature of this campaign that has led Ueda-Sarson to conclude that the reforms altered the equipment of the Athenian marines.
52 C.A. Matthew, ‘When Push comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat?’ Historia 58.4 (2009) 400.
53 Champion (Pyrrhus of Epirus (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 24) says that Iphicrates increased the spear carried by ‘light troops’ (rather than hoplites as is specifically stated in the ancient texts), and that it was only increased from a length of 3m (300cm – which is too big for a hoplite spear) to 4m (400cm – which is too short for a weapon that has been doubled in length – or even increased by half (see n.54)). Such a conclusion clearly does not correlate with the details given by Nepos and Diodorus.
54 Arr. Tact. 12.7; Markle (‘Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon’ AJA 82.4 (1978) 487) says the spear was only lengthened to 12 feet (3.6m); see also J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, (University of Oklahoma Press, 1995) 67. Similarly, Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 10) and Sekunda (‘Military Forces’ 327) also states that the spear was only increased in length to 1½ times that of the hoplite spear. Ueda-Sarson (‘Reforms of Iphicrates’ 30) suggests that Nepos says the spear was doubled in length while Diodorus says it was only increased by half and that the difference may have been due to the two writers using different source material. Such claims may be, in part, due to the terminology used by Diodorus. The word used by Diodorus to describe the size of the new weapon of the Iphicratean reforms is ημιολίῳ (from ημιόλιος) meaning ‘one and a half’ or ‘half as much’ which, following Warry’s, Markle’s, Sekunda’s and Ueda-Sarson’s line of thought, would result in a new weapon 382cm in length. However, the term ημioλίω can also mean ‘as large again’ (i.e. doubled) which would then reconcile what Diodorus says with the description of the Iphicratean reforms given by Nepos.
55 M.M. Markle, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armour’ AJA 81.3 (1977) 323.
56 For example see: Arr. Anab. 1.27.8, 1.28.4
57 As with many things relating to the warfare of this time, there are many different scholarly opinions about how both the Thracian and Iphicratean peltasts were armed as well. Gabriel (Philip II, 183), for example, states that Thracian peltasts (rather than Iphicratean peltasts) carried the small peltē and a spear longer than that of traditional Greek hoplites. It is uncertain if this conclusion is a confused interpretation of the description of the armament of the Iphicratean peltast given by Diodorus and Nepos – although Lucian (Dial. mort. 699.1-3) does describe a Thracian armed with a peltē and sarissa. Parke (Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Ares, Chicago, 1981) 79-80) suggests that Iphicratean peltasts still functioned as hoplites. English (Army of Alexander, 24, 69-70) and Pietrykowski (Great Battles, 15) imply that the Iphicratean peltasts were armed with spears or javelins, that they wore little armour and that they still operated as light troops but with standardized equipment. English then goes on to say (p.135) that both the hypaspists and the pezhetairoi were essentially peltasts with little armour and a peltē. Many aspects of these interpretations clearly go against the descriptions of the Iphicratean peltast, the hypaspists and the pezhetairoi that are given in the ancient sources. English (p.69) also criticises the works of Diodorus by stating that he shows a ‘serious lack of understanding of the military situation of the day’ because, according to English, Diodorus fails to recognize the existence of peltasts prior to the time of Iphicrates. Similarly, Everson (Warfare in Ancient Greece (Sutton Publishing, Stroud, 2004) 172) suggests that passages such as those of Diodorus are full of errors because ‘the first clear misconception is that hoplites became peltasts’ and that what Diodorus was referring to were skirmishers. Despite the transformation of hoplites into peltasts being exactly what Diodorus and Nepos state, such conclusions are clearly mistaken. Peltasts, in the role of a skirmisher, had existed for some time prior to Iphicrates. What Diodorus is commenting on, and what makes the reforms of Iphicrates so noteworthy, is that the soldiers resultant from the reform were not skirmishers but pikemen who were also armed with a small shield. Despite the errors in their conclusions (see n.53 and n.54 above) Champion (Pyrrhus, 24) still calls the Iphicratean peltast the ‘prototype of the Macedonian phalangite’, while Everson (Warfare, 173) says that the lengthened spear may have been the forerunner to the sarissa.
58 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 27; R. Sheppard (ed.), Alexander the Great at War (Osprey, Oxford, 2008) 54; D. Head, ‘The Thracian Sarissa’ Slingshot 214 (2001) 10-13
59 Didymus, On Dem. 13.3-7; see also: Just. Epit. 9.3.1-3; Dem. 18.67; Plutarch (Mor. 331B) calls the weapon a longche which may be another name for the sarissa (see page 59).
60 Lucian, Dial. mort. 439-440 – …ὑποστὰς δὲ ὁ Θρᾷξ τῇ πέλτῃ μὲν ὑποδὺς ἀποσείεται τoῦ Ἀρσάκου τὸν koντόν, ὑποθεὶς δὲ τὴν σάρισαν αὐτόν τε διαπείρει καὶ τὸν ἵππον.
61 J.G.P. Best, Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 1969) 3-16, 102-110, 139-142, 144
62 Xen. Anab. 4.7.15-16
63 See the Dillery’s note to Xenophon’s passage in the Loeb edition of the Anabasis.
64 See Warner’s note to Xenophon’s passage in the Penguin edition of the Anabasis (called The Persian Expedition).
65 Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 31
66 On the Thracians using long spears see: Lucian, Dial. mort. 439-440; Plut. Mor. 331b; on the arms and armour of the Egyptians see: Hdt. 2.182, 3.47, 7.89; Xen. Cyr. 6.2.10, 7.1.33.
67 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2; Ueda-Sarson (‘Infantry of the Successors’, 24) suggests that the reason why the deployment and operation of peltasts is not covered as a separate issue in all of the military manuals is that they were functioning as phalangites – for which the manuals go into great detail about their drill, functions and formations.
68 Polyb. 5.23, 10.31, 10.49; Ueda-Sarson (‘Infantry of the Successors’, 24) connects this unit of 10,000 peltasts with the ‘Silver Shields’ – a unit of phalangites.
69 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2; Tarn (Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge University Press, 1930) 6) seems to interpret Aelian as referring to traditional Greek hoplites and peltast skirmishers rather than to hoplites and phalangites.
70 Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete (Reconstructing Ancient Linen Armour – Unraveling the Linothorax Debate (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2013) 22, 46-47) note that natural linen varies in colour from dirty grey to brown, but that one method of bleaching the fabric was to rub it with natron or potash. This may also be another origin of the term argilos. For a detailed discussion of the variety of colours and designs found on Greek examples of linen armour see: Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Armour, 47-56. The weight of a set of linen armour would depend upon a number of factors including how thickly it was made, whether it was constructed entirely of linen or was a ‘composite’ of a leather core with a linen facing and backing, whether the armour possesses flaps (pteruges) to protect the groin, if the armour was reinforced with metal scales and so on. Replica linothorakes made by Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete for their experiments, constructed solely from layered linen glued together, made to fit a person slightly larger than the average ancient Greek weighed around 4kg (see: Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Armour, 146).
71 Bardunias (‘The Linothorax Debate: A Response’ Ancient Warfare 5.1 (2011) 4-5) notes how a covering of clay would actually absorb water and so various gums and glues would be needed to be used as a sealant to make the armour water resistant. It should also be noted that Theophrastus (Lap. 62-64) states how certain kaolins, such as Melian, Tymphaic or Samian earth, were used in the bleaching of textiles. Consequently, the term argilos may also be a reference to the materials used to bleach the cloth used in the construction of the linothorax (see also the commentary on page 208-213 of Caley and Richard’s edition of Theophrastus). Bardunias further states that armour would be much more effective if, rather than applying a layer of clay to the outside, it was instead worked into the weave which would then make the armour both pliable to slow impacts, but able to present a resistant surface to fast impacts such as would be received from a stabbing weapon like a spear or sword.
72 Diod. Sic. 16.93.4
73 For the two one-handed combative postures that the Greek hoplite employed to wield their spear see: Matthew, ‘Othismos’ 400-405; Everson (Warfare, 174) states that, even if the spear was increased in length so that it had to have been carried with both hands, he finds it unlikely that Iphicrates’ peltasts would have used it in this manner as it would have reduced their mobility. What Everson has failed to appreciate is that the troops being reformed were not highly mobile skirmishers but heavily armed pikemen and that the creation of a pike-phalanx did, in fact, reduce the mobility of the formation as Everson suggests. How he thinks the Iphicratean peltast did use a lengthened spear, if not in a two-handed manner, Everson does not elaborate on other than suggesting (p.174) that the sources may be incorrect in their description and that the spear was only lengthened by half, to about 12ft in length, which then could have possibly been wielded in one hand. However, such an interpretation of the source material seems unlikely (see n.54 above).
74 Plutarch (Cleom. 11) states how the Spartan king Cleomenes taught his men to ‘use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear’. Tarn (Military and Naval Developments, 28) suggests that both hands were only needed to use the pikes of the second century BC when they had increased to 14 cubits (or 672cm) in length. Clearly, this statement cannot be considered accurate.
75 This was partially dependent upon the type of wood that was used to fashion the core of the shield. Pliny the Elder (HN 16.209) states that the best woods for making shields were poplar and willow. Krentz (‘Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought’ in D. Kagan and G.F. Viggiano, Men of Bronze – Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (Princeton University Press, 2013) 136) notes that a shield made from poplar or willow would weigh half as much as one made of oak, and two-thirds to three-quarters the weight of a shield made of pine.
76 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 39-44
77 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 39-44
78 Ueda-Sarson (‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 30) suggests that the lengthy spear of the Iphicratean reforms was used to partially offset the reduction in protection brought about via the adoption of the peltē.
79 This is similar to (albeit a two-handed version of) the ‘low position’ – one of several combative postures adopted by the Classical Greek hoplite to fight – which similarly placed little muscular stress on the muscles of the arm. See: Matthew, A Storm of Spears, 113-130
80 D. Featherstone, Warriors and Warfare in Ancient and Medieval Times (Constable, London, 1997) 57; Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 34
81 Asclep. Tact. 5.1; Theophr. Caus. pl. 3.12; Arr. Tact. 12.7
82 Best (Thracian Peltasts, 139) suggests that it was the Thracian peltast, and not the Iphicratean peltast, that bore all of the hallmarks of the Macedonian phalangite. Bests states ‘[Thracian] equipment is characterized by the long thrusting spear (sarissa) and the pelte.’ This, at least, is how Lucian (Dial. mort. 439-440) describes the Thracians. However, for the other forms of Thracian peltast, while they did carry a small shield, their spear was not unlike that of the classical Greek hoplite, or even smaller javelins for use in skirmishing, rather than the long pike of the Iphicratean peltast or the later Macedonian phalangite. Best goes on to suggest (p.104) that the reforms of Iphicrates, as described by Diodorus and Nepos, never actually took place and that this ‘proves that both authors had no idea of the military situation in Iphicrates’ time’. Such a conclusion seems unlikely when the connection between the Iphicratean peltast and the Macedonian phalangite is considered. Ueda-Sarson (‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 33) also makes a possible connection between the Iphicratean peltast and the Macedonian phalangite. However, because he believes that the reformed spear was only lengthened by half (see n.53 and n.54), rather than being enlarged into a pike, he subsequently dismisses this conclusion.
83 Tarn, Military and Naval Developments, 43
84 Aeschin. 2.26-28
85 Aeschin. 2.29; Nepos, Iphicrates, 3.2; when Alexander II was assassinated by Ptolemy in 368BC, the crown passed to Philip’s other brother, Perdiccas III. However, Perdiccas was too young to rule and Ptolemy acted as his regent until 365BC when Perdiccas had him executed and assumed sole rule. In 359BC Perdiccas attempted to conquer Upper Macedonia from the Illyrians, but the expedition was a disaster and Perdiccas was killed along with 4,000 of his troops (see: Diod. Sic. 16.2.4-5). The crown then passed to Perdiccas’ son, Amyntas, but he too was too young to rule alone. Perdiccas’ last surviving brother, Philip, acted as Amyntas’ tutor and regent for only a short time before declaring himself king of Macedonia in the same year (359BC). Amyntas was not considered to be any threat to Philip and he was tied to Philip through a marriage to Philip’s daughter Cynane. Hammond (Alexander the Great King, Commander and Statesman, 24-25) suggests that Amyntas, being from a more senior line of the Macedonian royal house, may have even been considered the possible successor of Philip. However, this all changed when Alexander III came to the throne in 336BC and promptly had Amyntas (who was not only his cousin but also his stepbrother) executed.
86 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’ 486
87 Bosworth, ‘The Argeads’ 99; Bosworth also suggests (101-102) that the Macedonians under Alexander II may have fought as hoplites rather than pikemen. This would seem odd when the pike-phalanx of Iphicrates seems to have been adopted by Macedon around the same time, if not earlier. For Pelopidas in Macedon see: Diod. Sic. 15.67.4
88 Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Armour, 15
89 Bennett and Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors Vol.II, 3; see also: Sekunda ‘Land Forces’, 329: J.K. Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1970) 131, 306; Bennett and Roberts also state that ‘such closeness to the tactical reformers [as Philip had with Iphicrates] is required to explain the radical military thinking [of] Philip’. A closeness to a tactical reform would certainly help understand where the Macedonian pike-phalanx had come from, but this does not necessarily pertain to only Philip when many other Macedonian rulers are just as likely.
90 English, Army of Alexander, 69
91 Webster (‘Iphikratean Peltast/Hoplite’, 6) suggests that there was a now lost biography of Iphicrates which outlined his reforms in relation to drill, training and discipline as well as crediting Iphicrates with the reforms initiated by Philip of Macedon – a detail which then carried over into the works of Diodorus and Nepos who could have used this lost text as source material. This seems highly speculative and simply accepts that Philip was the creator of the pike-phalanx without considering much of the other available evidence.
92 Sekunda, ‘Land Forces’ 329; see also: Pietrykowski, Great Battles, 15; A.R. Burn, ‘The Generalship of Alexander’ Greece & Rome Second Series 12.2 (1965) 141; G. Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange (Rome, Il Cerchio, 2011) 21; B.A. Noguera (L’évolution de la phalange macédonienne: le cas de la sarisse’ Ancient Macedonia 6.2 (1999) 849-850 (839-850)) suggests that, for the Macedonians, the word ‘sarisa’ applied to all spears while, for the Greeks, it referred specifically to the Macedonian pike. The tenth century Suda (s.v. Σὰρισσα) merely calls the sarissa ‘a long Macedonian spear’ (δόρυ μακρὸν παpὰ Μακεδόσι) without providing any details of its origins or where the name of the weapon came from.
93 P.A. Rahe, ‘The Annihilation of the Sacred Band at Chaeronea’ AJA 85.1 (1981) 87; see also: Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54; see also: Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 33l; Rahe also incorrectly connects Diodorus’ reference (16.3.1-2) to Philip using a formation in close-order with this adoption of the pike-phalanx.
94 Champion, Pyrrhus, 23-24
95 Diod. Sic. 15.44.3
96 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 483-497
97 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 31; see also: Heckel, The Wars of Alexander, 24
98 Develin (‘Anaximenes’, 496) outlines how it is suggested that the pezhetairoi, who had acted as a bodyguard for Philip II according to Diodorus and Theopompus, were replaced by the hypaspists under Alexander III while the term pezhetairoi may have become synonymous with the rest of the phalanx (or at least part of it). Erskine (‘πεζέταιροι’, 390-391, 393-394), who suggests that the passage of Anaximenes could be consistent with a small unit of troops as much as it could be with the entire Macedonian phalanx, offers that the change occurred because, upon ascending to the throne, Alexander needed to replace Philip’s bodyguard with a different unit because both he and his mother Olympias were implicated in Philip’s assassination (see Just. Epit. 9.7.1-14) and, as such, his hold on power was somewhat tenuous and so Philip’s pezhetairoi bodyguard was replaced with Alexander’s hypaspists. Suspicion also seems to have fallen on Philip’s guards and his closest associates (P. Oxy. 15.1798) and this would also account for Alexander needing to form a new contingent of guards.
99 English, Army of Alexander, 5; Strangely, English later states (p.27) that Alexander III introduced the term pezhetairoi which goes against his earlier statement.
100 Polyb. 12.20
101 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 487
102 G.T. Griffith, ‘Philip as a General and the Macedonian Army’ in M.B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Heinemann, London, 1980) 58. Griffith goes on to suggest (p.59) that ‘it was Philip presumably (although we are not told when) who introduced the sarissa, the very long pike which became eventually the standard weapon of the Macedonian infantry’, yet also concedes (p.62) that ‘our record of Philip’s battles is a travesty, which does not allow us to see precisely in what ways the arrival of the sarissa changed the tactics of the infantry phalanx’.
103 Polyaenus, 2.38.2; see also: Diod. Sic. 16.35.2
104 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 487; see also: Champion (Pyrrhus 24-25) who suggests they are all skirmishers. Hammond (‘Training in the Use of a Sarissa and its Effects in Battle 359-333 B.C.’ Antichthon 14 (1980) 60), on the other hand, states that Markle’s belief that the phalangites were using missile weapons is ‘irreconcilable’.
105 Arr. Anab, 3.18.3; Diod. Sic. 17.68.2-3; Curt. 5.3.17-23
106 Arr. Anab. 3.18.2
107 Arr. Anab. 1.1.9; Alexander had his men lay down and cover themselves with their shields so that the wagons would simply roll over the top of them. English (The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2011) 25) suggests that this may indicate that Alexander’s phalangites had actually borrowed the larger hoplite aspis from the allied Greek and mercenary troops. This seems unlikely. Sheppard (Alexander the Great at War, 73), on the other hand, suggests that these men were hypaspists carrying the larger hoplite aspis.
108 Gabriel (Philip II, 129) suggests that Polyaenus does not use the term ‘phalanx’ in his description of the battle with Onomarchus but uses the term ‘battle-line’ instead. Gabriel is clearly mistaken.
109 Arr. Anab. 1.28.3
110 Arr. Anab. 3.12.3
111 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 487
112 M. Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’ BCH 94.1 (1970) 91-107
113 Warry (Warfare, 68), for example, states that ‘Philip of Macedon was a man of many-sided genius…He created an army on a new model and used it in war with brilliant strategic and tactical ability’. Donvito (‘Clad in Gold and Silver’ Ancient Warfare V.6 (2012) 10) calls Philip one of the ‘fathers’ of the Hellenistic army in a clear assumption that he created this new style of fighting (the other named ‘father’ is Alexander the Great). Hammond (‘What May Philip Have Learnt as a Hostage in Thebes?’ GRBS 38.4 (1997) 366) flatly states that ‘the infantry were taught to use a new weapon and to fight in a new formation, both of which were Philip’s inventions’. Connolly (Greece and Rome, 64) states that ‘the rise of Macedon was due almost entirely to one man, Philip II. On his accession to the throne in 359BC he set about building up the most formidable fighting machine the world had yet seen.’ For other examples of models which offer Philip as the creator of the pike-phalanx see: Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II, 140-141; J. Kromayer and G. Veith Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Geichen und Römer (C.H. Beck, Munich, 1928) 98; Gabriel, Philip II, 64; Champion, Pyrrhus, 24, 60; I. Worthington (ed.), Alexander the Great – A Reader (Routledge, London, 2012) 18; Thomson, Granicus, 24; Hammond, ‘Training’, 54-57; G.T. Griffith, ‘Philip as a General’ in Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon, 58; J. Pietrykowski, ‘In the School of Alexander – Armies and tactics in the Age of the Successors’ AncWar 3.2 (2009) 21; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54; Pietrykowski, Great Battles, x; Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander, 24, 26, 35, 49, 50; Bennett and Roberts, Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, xvi, 3; Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 10; I. Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008) 27; Heckel, Conquests of Alexander, 16
114 Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 64, 68-69; Champion (Pyrrhus, 24) dates the reforms to between 349BC and 338BC, but goes on to say (page 25) that it is easier to accept the simpler concept of a single period of reform earlier in Philip’s reign than it is to accept the idea of one lot of reforms early in his reign, and more reforms a decade later.
115 G. Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon (Faber & Faber, London, 1978) 150; see also: Gabriel, Philip II, 61, 64-65, 245
116 Diod. Sic. 16.1.5
117 English, Army of Alexander, 4-5
118 N.G.L Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia Vol.II (Oxford University Press, 1979) 213, 407; see also: E.N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedonia (Princeton University Press, 1990) 202; Worthington, Philip II, 26
119 Bennett and Roberts, Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 3
120 Diod. Sic. 16.2.5
121 Philip and the Phocians: Polyaenus, 2.38.2; see also: Diod. Sic. 16.35.2; Alexander at the Persian Gates: Arr. Anab, 3.18.3; Diod. Sic. 17.68.2-3; Curt. 5.3.17-23
122 Markle, ‘The Use of the Sarissa’, 483
123 R.E. Dickinson ‘Length Isn’t Everything – Use of the Macedonian Sarissa in the Time of Alexander the Great’ JBT 3:3 (2000) 51
124 Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon, 157; for other examples of the use of backwards extrapolation to try and understand the warfare of the age of Philip see: Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 7; Fuller, Generalship of Alexander, 49
125 Cawkwell, Philip ofMacedon, 157
126 Everson, Warfare, 174; Daniel (‘The Taxeis of Alexander and the change to Chiliarch, the Companion Cavalry and the change to Hipparchies: A Brief Assessment’ AncW 23.2 (1992) 45) also suggests that Philip may have been ‘impressed’ by the Theban use of a long pike. However, the Thebans did not use a pike at this time (see following).
127 Gabriel, Philip II, 61; Worthington (Philip II, 22) similarly sums up the state of Macedon at the time of Philip’s rise to the throne by stating that ‘Philip’s inheritance was the worst that any new king could face, and lesser men would have failed miserably in their attempts to save Macedonia.’
128 Diod. Sic. 16.2.4-5
129 Gabriel, Philip II, 61
130 Diod. Sic. 16.4.3; Hammond (‘Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers in Greece and Macedonia’ JHS 109 (1989) 63) states that after the time of Philip the strength of the Macedonian military could have been 20,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. Fuller (Generalship of Alexander, 26) suggests that soon after he came to the throne, Philip ‘reorganized the Macedonian army and recruited it to a force of 600 cavalry and 10,000 infantry’. Fuller uses this as evidence for the claim that Philip was a great military reformer. However, what Fuller seems to have failed to consider is that Perdiccas III may have possessed an army of this size back in 359BC and that Philip was merely replacing the losses that had been incurred in the conflict with the Illyrians rather than reforming the nature of the Macedonian military.
131 Diod. Sic. 16.85.5
132 Alexander the Great took 12,000 Macedonian infantry (including the hypaspists) to Asia in 334BC (Diod. Sic. 17.17.3), another 12,000 were left in Macedonia under the command of Antipater (Diod. Sic. 17.17.4-5), and several thousand had already been sent to Asia as part of an expeditionary force in 336BC (Diod. Sic. 17.7.10).
133 Diodorus (16.1.3-6, 16.3.1-2) provides an overview of the reign and accomplishments of Philip. Interestingly, the creation of the pike-phalanx is not mentioned.
134 Arr. Anab. 7.9.2
135 Diod. Sic. 16.3.1; Just. Epit. 8.5.6-7; see also: Gabriel Philip II, 34, 37, 50, 71, 82; N.G.L Hammond, The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989) 151; Bosworth convincingly argues that the term pezhetairoi (πεζέταιροι), meaning ‘foot companions’, could be either a generic reference to the pike-phalanx as a whole or a specific reference to infantry units raised only in Lower Macedonia. Bosworth additionally argues that the term asthetairoi (ἀσθέταιροι), a term found seven times in the works of Arrian (Anab. 1.28.3, 2.23.2, 4.23.1, 5.22.6, 6.6.1, 6.21.3, 7.11.3), is a reference only to infantry units recruited from Upper Macedonia following Philip II’s annexation of that region; see: A.B. Bosworth, ‘ΑΣΘΕΤAΙΡΟΙ’ CQ New Series 23.2 (1973) 245-253.
136 Arr. Anab. 7.9.4;
137 Arrian (Anab. 1.2.5) does mention specific cavalry contingents that have come from Upper Macedonia in Alexander’s army, while Diodorus (17.57.2) mentions infantry contingents from the regions of Elymoitis, Orestis, Lyncestis and Tymphaea (see also: Curt. 4.13.28).
138 Hammond, King, Commander and Statesman, 27; Fuller (Generalship of Alexander, 47) similarly suggests that Philip created the professional Macedonian army. See also: Gabriel, Philip II, 46
139 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 114-115
140 Harpocration, Lexicon s.v. pezhetairoi (Anaximenes – Jacoby FrGrHist. 72 F4); Ael. Tact. Tact. 3
141 Ael. Tact. Tact. 34
142 Front. Strat. 4.1.6
143 Just. Epit. 11.6.4-5
144 F.E. Adcock, The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1957) 25; see also: Gabriel, Philip II, 24; Featherstone, Warriors and Warfare, 57; Warry, Warfare, 69; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 116; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 51-52; Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange, 18; Hammond (‘Royal Pages, Personal Pages, and Boys Trained in the Macedonian Manner during the Period of the Temenid Monarchy’ Historia 39.3 (1990) 275) states that Philip’s ‘new weapon was the pike’ despite citing, on previous pages, many of the sources which suggest that the Macedonian military was professional (or at least semi-professional) prior to his reign.
145 Plut. Pel. 26; Diodorus presents a different, and conflicting version of events. In Book 15 of his History, Diodorus simply states (15.67.4) that in the year 369/368BC Pelopidas ‘made an alliance with Alexander, the Macedonian king, and he took from him as a hostage his brother Philip whom he sent to Thebes’. However, in the following book (16.2.2), Diodorus elaborates on his earlier tale by stating that Amyntas, the father of both Alexander II and Philip had been defeated by the Illyrians in 383BC (the year that Philip had been born) and that the Illyrians had subsequently taken Philip as a hostage only to later place him in the care of the Thebans. In another version of events, Justin (Epit. 7.5.1) says that Philip was ransomed by Alexander II and then sent to Thebes. However, regardless of how he actually got there, it is clear that Philip was taken to Thebes as a hostage when he was about 13 or 14 years old.
146 Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon, 150; see also: Snodgrass (Arms & Armour, 116) who says the same thing.
147 Warry, Warfare, 69
148 Connolly, Greece and Rome, 64, 69; Connolly also suggests (page 69) that it was Philip II who called the men of his phalanx ‘Infantry Companions’ in order to raise their dignity. This conclusion seems to ignore the passage of Anaximenes which states that it was Alexander II, and not Philip II, who first referred to the pike-infantry as pezhetairoi (see page 4).
149 Fuller, Generalship of Alexander, 24; see also: Worthington, Philip II, 18
150 Plut. Pelop. 26 – ἐκ δὲ τoύτου καὶ ζηλωτὴς γεγovέναι ἔδοξεν Ἐπαμεινώνδου, τὸ περὶ τοὺς πολέμους καὶ τὰς στρατηγίας δραστήριον ἴσως κατανοήσας
151 App. Syr. 41
152 Plut. Pelop. 26; Diodorus (16.2.2) similarly states that Philip was entrusted to the care of Epaminondas’ father. In his Moralia (178c), Plutarch states that the young Philip lived with Philon rather than Pammenes.
153 For accounts of the battle see: Xen. Hell. 6.4.1-15; Plut. Pel. 23; Diod. Sic. 15.55.1-15.56.4
154 Thuc. 4.93
155 Xen. Hell. 6.4.2; Bennett and Roberts (Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 4) suggest that the Macedonian pike-phalanx was not as deep as the weighty, 48-deep, Theban phalanx. However, there is no reference to the Thebans ever using a formation of this depth.
156 Piraeus: Xen. Hell. 2.4.12; Mantinea: Xen. Hell. 6.5.19
157 Front. Strat. 4.1.6
158 For example see: Polyb. 6.25; Arr. Tact. 42.1; Asclep. Tact. 2.1-2; Ael. Tact. 5.1-2
159 Diod. Sic. 17.11.3, 17.13.4
160 Featherstone, Warriors and Warfare, 57
161 S. Skarmintzos, ‘Phalanx versus Legion: Greco-Roman Conflict in the Hellenistic Era’ AncWar 2.2 (2008) 30; see also Hammond (The Genius of Alexander the Great (Duckworth, London, 1997) 13) who makes a similar suggestion.
162 FrGrHist 4.356 F1; see also: Athenaeus 11.506f
163 E.M. Anson, ‘The Introduction of the Sarisa in Macedonian Warfare’ AncSoc 40 (2010) 58-59
164 Worthington, Philip II, 26
165 Just. Epit. 7.2.6
166 Diod. Sic. 15.18.2-3; Xen. Hell. 5.2.11, 5.2.36, 5.3.8
167 Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 33
168 Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 33
169 Ueda-Sarson, ‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 33
170 Thuc. 4.124
171 Hom. Il. 6.319; see also: T.D. Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age (Biblo & Tannen, New York, 1963) 665
172 Gabriel, Philip II, 65
173 A. Aymard, ‘Philippe de Macédoine, otage á Thèbes’ REA 56 (1954) 21
174 For example see: J.R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (Thames & Hudson, London, 1976) 43: M.B. Hatzopoulos, ‘La Béotie et la Macédoine à l’époque de l’hégémonie Thébaine’ in La Béotie antique: Lyon-Saint-Étienne – 16-20 Mai 1983 (Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifìque, Paris, 1985) 252; Gabriel, Philip II, 3-4, 24-27
175 Diod. Sic. 15.67.4,
176 Just. Epit. 7.5.1-4
177 Plut. Alex. 7
178 Plut. Pel. 26
179 For example see: F. Geyer, Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II (R. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1939) 133; Hammond and Griffith, A History of Macedonia II, 186, 205; Bennett and Roberts, Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 3. Worthington (Philip II, 17), in something of a mid-point position, suggests a period of detention for Philip between 368BC and 365BC – see also: Gabriel (Philip II, 3-4, 24) who suggests that Philip was sent to Thebes in 369/368BC and then returned in 365BC.
180 Constant campaigning by the Spartans against the Thebans is said to have taught the Thebans how to fight better (Plut. Ages. 26; Plut. Pel. 15; Plut. Mor. 189f, 213f, 217e; see also: Polyaenus, Strat. 1.16.2; Excerpta Polyaeni, 13.1); as Bosworth points out (Conquest and Empire, 11), after Philip II annexed Thessaly in 352BC, he made no attempt to convert the Thessalians into an effective military force based upon the Macedonian model. This may have been partially due to a reluctance to teach the people of a newly conquered region a more effective way of fighting incase they should rebel.
181 IG VII 2418; for the details of the this decree see: P. Roesch, ‘Un Décret inédit de la Ligue Thébaine et la flotte d’Epaminindas’ REG 97 (1984) (pp.45-60) 45-50
182 Hammond and Griffith, A History of Macedonia II, 186, 205; see also Hammond, Macedonian State 74
183 Justin. Epit. 7.5.2
184 Worthington, Philip II, 19; on page 17 Worthington suggests that Philip was detained in Thebes until 365BC which would then correlate with the treaty between Thebes and Macedon.
185 Plut. Pel. 27
186 Just. Epit. 7.5.1-4
187 On the death of Alexander II see: Diod. Sic. 15.71.1
188 In an earlier passage (15.67.4), Diodorus also has Alexander II send the young Philip to Thebes as per Justin’s account. Aeschines (2.26) places Philip in the court of Ptolemy of Alorus in 369BC at which time Ptolemy ascends the throne of Macedon following the death of Alexander II.
189 Diod. Sic. 16.2.3
190 Just. Epit. 7.5.3
191 Diod. Sic. 16.3.2
192 Champion, Pyrrhus, 24
193 M.M. Markle, ‘A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types’ Hesperia 68.2 (1999) 243
194 Thompson, Granicus, 24
195 Gabriel, Philip II, 61; see also: English, Army of Alexander, 4; Hammond, ‘Training’, 53-58; Rahe, ‘The Annihilation of the Sacred Band’, 87; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 52; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 6
196 P. McDonnell-Staff ‘Hypaspists to Peltasts: The Elite Guard Infantry of the Antigonid Macedonian Army’ Ancient Warfare 5.6 (2012) 22; Warry (Warfare, 73) similarly says that open-order formations were 180cm per man (presumably based upon the Attic cubit of 45cm), close-order (by which he means intermediate-order), which was used for battle, was 90cm per man, and the locked shield formation used for defensive purposes was 50cm per man.
197 Asclep. 4.1 – τò πυκvότατον, καθ’ ὅ συνησπικὼς ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων πανταχόθεν διέστηκεν πηχυαῖον διάστημα, τό τε μέσον, ὅ καιπύκνωσιν ἐπονομάζουσιν, ᾧ διεστήκασι πανταχόθεν δυο πηχεις ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, τό τε ἀραιότατον, καθ’ ὅ ἀλληλων ἀπέχουσι κατά τε μῆκος καὶ βάθος ἕκαστοι πήχεις τέσσαρας; for the changes in the size of the cubit from the Classical to the Hellenistic period see the following section of the length of the sarissa.
198 Ael. Tact. Tact. 14; Polyb. 18.29; Arr. Tact. 11.3
199 It is interesting to note that Diodorus seems to confuse the formation he is referring to by calling it both the synaspismos, the 48cm interval order of Asclepiodotus, and a ‘compact order’, the alternate name for the 96cm intermediate-order of Asclepiodotus that was the closest combative deployment phalangites could adopt. However, as Diodorus specifically states that the formation adopted by Philip was able to interlock shields, it seems that what he is referring to is the smaller interval of 48cm per man. It is also interesting to note that the term used by Diodorus to describe the infantry is ‘fighters’ (πυκνότητα) – a term used by later writers to mean either hoplites or phalangites.
200 Ael. Tact. Tact. 32; see also: Asclep. Tact. 12.9; Mcdonnell-Staff (‘Hypaspists to Peltasts’, 23) suggests that it was impossible for a formation in close-order to change direction. This goes completely against the procedure of ‘wheeling’ outlined by Aelian and Asclepiodotus which specifically employs a close-order to change the direction the phalanx is facing.
201 Ael. Tact. Tact. 32
202 Polyb. 18.26; 18.30; in an interesting passage, Arrian (Anab. 5.17.7) states that, at the end of the battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander ordered his troops, who were encircling the Indian position, ‘to lock shields, concentrate in intermediate-order, and advance the phalanx’ (τοὺς πεζοὺς δὲ ξυνασπίσαντας ὡς ἐς πυκνοτάτην ξυγκλεισιν ἐπάγειν τηv φάλαγγα ἐσήμηνε). This passage initially seems somewhat confusing and has resulted in a variety of translations and interpretations which have as their general premise the connotation of the troops locking shields, forming the most compact order as possible, and then advancing. While this interpretation would make some sense, it would require an understanding that the troops had adopted a close-order formation in order to execute the wheel of their formation to accomplish the encirclement, but that they remained in this non-offensive configuration while they faced the remaining Indian forces. This would then mean that the Macedonians had no capability to engage the Indians and were simply surrounding them in the hope that they surrendered. Another way of reading the text however would be for the troops to adopt a close-order formation in order to execute the wheel and then, once in their new position, to open back out into an intermediate-order which would allow them to lower their pikes into a combative position. In either way the Indians were still surrounded, but in this alternate interpretation, the Macedonians would still possess an offensive capability. This seems to be confirmed by Arrian who says that, following the encirclement, the Indians were being killed from all sides.
203 P. Connolly, ‘Experiments with the Sarissa – The Macedonian Pike and Cavalry Lance – A Functional View’ JRMES 11 (2000) 111
204 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 179-197
205 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 179-197; it is also interesting to note that the term for the close-order formation (synaspismos) has its root in the term for the hoplite shield (aspis) rather than the shield of the phalangite (peltē). This is yet another indication that the term is to be associated primarily with hoplites rather than phalangites. See also: Markle ‘The Use of the Sarissa’, 484.
206 For examples of the ‘elite’ status and operations of the Hypaspists and The Royal Guard see: Diod. Sic. 14.6.7, 17.45.6, 17.57.2, 17.61.3, 17.99.4, 17.110.1; Arr. Anab. 1.5.2, 1.5.10, 1.6.5-6, 1.6.9, 1.8.3-4, 1.14.2, 1. 28.3, 2.4.3-4, 2.8.3, 2.23.2-2.24.4, 2.27.1, 3.11.9, 3.17.2, 3.18.5, 4.26.6, 4.29.1, 4.30.3, 5.13.1, 5.23.7, 6.2.2, 7.11.2-3. For the commemoration of the hypaspist units by Alexander on some of his coinage in recognition of their service see: C.A. Matthew, ‘For Valour: The ‘Shield Coins’ of Alexander and the Successors’ JNAA 20 (2009/2010) 15-35.
207 Tarn (Alexander the Great Vol.II, 140) states that the term hypaspist probably had ‘something to do with [the unit’s] armament, though what it may have been is unknown’. The armament of the hypaspists is another area of Hellenistic warfare which has roused considerable scholarly debate. Gabriel (Philip II, 71), for example, says that the hypaspists were armed as hoplites under Philip but were armed with sarissae for the battle of Chaeronea in 338BC (p.271). English (Army of Alexander, 29-30) and Milns (‘Philip II and the Hypaspists’ Historia 16.4 (1967) 509-510; ‘The Hypaspists of Alexander III – Some Problems’ Historia 20 (1971) 181) say that Philip invented the hypaspists but that they were always armed with sarissae. Bosworth (Conquest and Empire, 260) also suggests that the hypaspists were pikemen. Anson (‘Introduction of the Sarisa’ 61-63) suggests that the hypaspists were a unit of professional infantry guardsmen under both Philip and Alexander III, modelled on the Theban Sacred Band, and that they were armed as both hoplites and phalangites. Hammond (‘The Battle of the Granicus River’ JHS 100 (1980) 81-83, 86) states that it is clear that the hypaspists were armed with pikes from Polyaenus’ account (4.2.2) of Philip’s actions at Chaeronea and Arrian’s account of Alexander’s actions at Pelium (Anab. 1.6.2). Strangely, neither of these passages actually mention the hypaspists so it is uncertain upon what this conclusion is based. Everson (Warfare, 177) suggests that the hypaspists were only lightly armed but, as their name suggests, they may have carried substantial shields. Sekunda (‘Land Forces’ 333) similarly suggests that the hypaspists were ‘more lightly equipped than the main body of the phalanx’. Heckel (Conquests of Alexander, 26) suggests that the hypaspists were armed as hoplites, but with the lighter linothorax. Park (‘The Fight for Asia – The Battle of Gabiene’ AncWar 3.2 (2009) 33-35) says that the ‘Silver Shields’, Alexander’s former hypaspists who later fought with Eumenes, were armed with the sarissa in 316BC. Sekunda (‘Land Forces’, 339), on the other hand, suggests that Eumenes’ Silver Shields were carrying the aspis – which would then mean that they were operating as hoplites rather than pikemen. Bennett and Roberts (Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 9) suggest that the Silver Shields were phalangites fighting in the heart of the pike-phalanx by the time of the Successors. Featherstone (Warriors and Warfare, 58), on the other hand, claims that the hypaspists were created by Alexander the Great and were armed as hoplites. Donvito (‘Clad in Gold and Silver’ 8) says that the hypaspists were elite troops trained to fight ‘in all fashions available at that time: as hoplites, phalangites and light troops’. Cawkwell (Philip of Macedon, 33) says that by the time of Alexander the Great the hypaspists were armed as skirmishers so as to act as a more mobile hinge between the phalanx and the cavalry. Considering the nature of the engagements that the hypaspists were involved in at this time (sometimes operating on their own) this last conclusion seems unlikely. The very nature of the engagements that the hypaspists were involved in required men who were both relatively mobile, yet still very well protected. This suggests that they were armed as hoplites. Sekunda (Army of Alexander, 27) suggests that the way in which Arrian (1.1.9) describes Alexander’s troops as laying down and covering themselves with their shields to let wagons that were being rolled down upon them to harmlessly pass over them indicates that they were carrying the larger aspis rather than the smaller Macedonian shield. However, it must be considered that to undertake such a manoeuvre troops would be unlikely to be wielding their weapons, especially the sarissa, at the same time and, subsequently, they may have been covering themselves with the smaller shields. Alternatively, it is possible that this passage is referring to troops armed in the manner of the Classical hoplite. For further discussions on the hypaspists see: Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 17-18; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 115; Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II 140; Pietrykowski, ‘In the School of Alexander’, 24; Warry, Warfare, 72; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 84-85; Pietrykowski, Great Battles, 16; Fuller, Generalship of Alexander, 49-50; J.R. Ellis, ‘Alexander’s Hypaspists Again’ Historia 24.4 (1975) 617-618; R.A. Lock, ‘The Origins of the Argyraspids’ Historia 26.3 (1977) 373-378; E.M. Anson, ‘Alexander’s Hypaspists and the Argyraspids’ Historia 30.1 (1981) 117-120
208 Ellis, Philip II, 53, 58
209 Brunt, ‘Anaximenes’, 152; however, both Archaic and Classical Greek formations were a lot closer than Brunt would suggest. Xenophon (Cyr. 6.3.25; Mem. 3.1.7-8), for example, describes the deployment of the phalanx as being like the structure of a house; with the strongest elements making up the roof and the foundations (i.e. the front and rear ranks respectively) in a reference to the positioning of officers across the front and back of the line. In a passage which suggests the use of massed, phalanx-like, formations in the Archaic Period, Nestor is described as deploying his forces in a similar fashion by Homer in the Iliad (4.297-300). Homer also describes the Trojans as advancing with ‘rank following rank’ (13.800) and the Greeks fighting in native contingents (13.308-314, 16.168-199)
210 Anson (‘Citizen-Soldiers’, 248) suggests that Philip placed more mobile hypaspists on the right wing of his formation (the traditional location for Alexander’s hypaspists) when engaging the Illyrians in 358BC.
211 Thuc. 4.126; Ennius (Ann. Frg.540) describes the Illyrians as fighting with long spears and curved swords. While these bear many similarities to the doru and macharia carried by the Greek hoplite, the use of a standard formation (or not) by the Illyrians is not mentioned by Ennius.
212 Diod. Sic. 15.13.2
213 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.10
214 Champion, Pyrrhus, 24
215 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 491; Markle then argues that the sarissa was not used again until 331BC.
216 Diod. Sic. 17.2.3
217 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 486
218 Polyaenus, Strat. 3.9.35; Nepos, Iphicrates, 2.1-2
219 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.10; regular training, including accustomizing troops to privations, fostering physical fitness and weapon handling skills, training with wooden practice weapons and engaging in mock battles and exercises was a part of the Macedonina military system that continued from the time of Philip well into the age of the Successors. For Philip see: Diod. Sic. 16.3.1-2; Front. Strat. 2.1.9; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.1, 4.2.10; Alexander: Arr. Anab. 7.6.1, 7.12.2; Diod. Sic. 17.2.3, 17.1008.2, 17.110.3, Plut. Alex. 4, 40, 47; Successors: Ployb. 5.63-5.64; Livy 40.6.6-7
220 This did not stop the Athenian state from awarding panoplies of hoplite equipment to war orphans (Aeschines 3.154) or issuing elements of the hoplite panoply to the citizens following the ephebic reform of 335BC (Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.3-4). For an examination of the issue of this equipment see: B. Bertosa, ‘The Supply of Hoplite Equipment by the Athenian State Down to the Lamian War’ JMH 67.2 (2003) 361-379. Ueda-Sarson (‘The Reforms of Iphicrates’, 32) suggests that Diodorus is referring to troops from Phocis armed in the manner of the Iphicratean reforms in 355BC when he describes (16.24.2) how Philomenus selected ‘a thousand men from Phocis; whom he called peltasts’ (τῶν Φωκάων ἐπέλεξε χιλίους, oὓς ὠνόμασε πελταστάς). Ueda-Sarson argues that, had these troops been traditional skirmishers, Diodorus would have just used a term such as ‘a thousand Phocian peltasts’, and that the emphasis placed upon what they were called suggests that they were something out of the ordinary. If this is the case, then it would seem that some of the city states of Greece may have taken the principles of the Iphicratean reforms on board within two decades of their initial implementation. It is possible that some of the states of Greece had reformed their army in response to similar events which had already taken place in Macedon. Another point to consider is that someone would have paid for Iphicrates to undertake his military ‘experiment’. Unfortunately, the sources do not outline how this reform was funded or by whom (for a discussion on who may, or may not, have funded the equipping of mercenary troops see: P. McKechnie, ‘Greek Mercenary Troops and their Equipment’ Historia 43.3 (1994) 297-305). Regardless of who funded the reform, the fact that both Diodorus and Nepos place considerable emphasis on its details suggests that it was not done on a small scale and, as such, it can only be assumed that the expense incurred to create the Iphicratean peltast was considerable. Possibly due to the expense of creating a pike-phalanx, other states took much longer to adopt this mode of fighting. Both the Spartans and the Achaeans, for example, did not use the pike-phalanx until the late third century BC (Plut. Cleom. 11; Polyaenus, Strat. 6.4.3). There are three main sources for military reforms for the Achaeans undertaken by Philopoemen in 207BC (Polybius (11.9) only mentions the reforms in passing) but their interpretation has aroused a certain level of scholarly debate. Plutarch (Philopoemen, 9) states that ‘they [i.e. the Achaeans] used thureoi which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body, and spears which were much shorter than the Macedonian sarissa…Philopoemen… persuaded them to adopt the sarissa and aspis instead of the doru and thureos’. Pausanias (8.50.1) states that ‘whereas they [i.e. the Achaeans] used to carry small light spears and long shields like the Celtic thureoi or the Persian wicker shields, he persuaded them to put on breastplates and greaves, and to additionally use Argive shields (aspides) and long spears’. Polyaenus (Stratagems, 6.4.3) states that ‘Philopoemen taught the Achaeans to use the aspis and sarissa instead of the large oblong thureos and doru, to protect themselves with helmets, breastplates and greaves…’. These passages have aroused considerable scholarly debate. Some have seen this as a change from fighting in a Homeric fashion, with the large tower shields of the Archaic Age, to the style of hoplites – no doubt based upon the use of the term aspis to describe the new shield that the Achaeans used (for example see: H.L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (Macmillan, London, 1950) 195; A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh University Press, 1964) 61, 184, 203). Others have seen this as a change from fighting with a shield not unlike the Roman scutum, as per one definition of the term thureos, to fighting as hoplites (for example see: J.K. Anderson, ‘Philopoemen’s Reform of the Achaean Army’ CP 62.2 (1967) 104-106). While others see it as a change to fighting as Hellenistic Phalangites (for example see: M.F. Williams, ‘Philopoemen’s Special Forces: Peltasts and a New Kind of Greek Light-Armed Warfare (Livy 35.27)’ Historia 53.3 (2004) 257-277). This last interpretation seems to more closely fit with the use of the term sarissa to describe the new weapon that the Achaeans employed. Such being the case, it can only be concluded that the use of the term aspis for the shield that they used following the reform has to be a generic expression to simply mean ‘shield’ and cannot be a reference to the use of the large shield of the Classical hoplite (despite Pausanias’ explicit reference to ‘Archive shields’) as the larger diameter of the hoplite aspis would not allow the left hand to be used to help carry the pike. Conversely, Anderson (‘Philopoemen’s Reform’, 104) suggests that the use of the term sarissa in the ancient sources may be a generic term for ‘long spear’ – which could then allow for the use of the larger aspis depending upon just how long these new ‘long spears’ were.
221 N. Sekunda, The Persian Army 560-330BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2005) 27
222 Diod. Sic. 16.3.1
223 For a discussion of the continuance of the issue of equipment and other customs by the state see: N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Continuity of Macedonian Institutions and the Macedonian Kingdoms of the Hellenistic Era’ Historia 49.2 (2000) 141-160
224 Justin 8.6.3; Diodorus (16.2.4) similarly states that Macedonia was ‘in a bad way’ when Philip came to the throne. Plutarch (Mor. 327D) additionally states that not only were Philip’s treasuries empty, but the state also had an outstanding debt of 200 talents. By the time Alexander launched his campaign into Asia, he only had cash reserves of 70 talents which, according to Duris, was only enough to fund the expedition for 30 days (Plut. Alex. 15; Plut. Mor. 327e).
225 The mines provided Philip with approximately 1,000 talents of gold per year (Diod. Sic. 16.8.7; Dem. 9.50) while he also collected tribute from the Thracians (Diod. Sic. 16.71.2) and taxes from the Thessalians (Dem. 6.22, 19.89).
226 Diod. Sic. 16.4.5-6
227 Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 53; see also: Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 9-10. Hammond (‘Training’ 58) says that the use of the sarissa was one of the reasons for Philip’s victory. While this may be so, his victory using this weapon does not necessarily mean he invented it. Diodorus (16.8.6-7) states that the increased output from the mines of Philippi meant that, once Philip had captured them, he was able to hire large numbers of mercenaries. These troops would have undoubtedly not been using the sarissa.
228 Anson, ‘Introduction of the Sarisa’, 64; see also: Heckel, Conquests of Alexander, 16
229 For an analysis of the comparative costs involved in making both linen and metal armour see: Aldrete, Bartell, and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor, 149-160
230 Gabriel, Philip II, 61
231 This would then agree with Bosworth’s conclusion that the term pezhetairoi refers to the infantry units raised in Lower Macedonia while the term asthetairoi refers to units recruited from Upper Macedonia following Philip II’s annexation of that region; see: Bosworth, ‘ΑΣΘΕΤAΙΡΟΙ’, 245-253
232 Diodorus (16.4.6) states that when Philip confronted the Illyrian forces of Bardylis in 358BC, it was the use of his cavalry to strike the flanks of the Illyrian position which contributed greatly to the victory.
233 See: Anderson, Military Theory, 160
234 Bennett and Roberts (Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 3), somewhat oddly, suggest that while in Thebes the young Philip must have gained an appreciation for deeply weighted phalanxes such as those that Epaminondas had used at Leuctra in 371BC and Mantinea in 362BC. The odd thing is that Philip was not in Thebes in 362BC and so it would have been impossible for any information on the battle of Mantinea to have had an influence on him while he was there between 369-367BC.
235 For example see: Gabriel, Philip II, 108-109; Hammond, ‘Philip as Hostage’ 357-365; see also: N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Battle between Philip and Bardylis’ Antichthon 23 (1989) 1-9
236 Diod. Sic. 15.55.1; Plut. Pelop. 23
237 It is also interesting to note that, despite the contribution of the slanting phalanx to the Theban victory at Leuctra in 371BC, it is not used at Mantinea in 362BC, nor is it used against Philip at Chaeronea in 338BC.
238 Diod. Sic. 16.4.6; Frontin. Str. 2.3.2; for an examination of this confrontation see: Hammond, ‘Philip and Bardylis’, 1-9
239 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.2; Diod. Sic. 16.86.1-6; Fuller (Generalship of Alexander, 35) suggests that Philip’s tactics at Chaeronea ‘resembled those of Leuctra’. However, other than in the most vague of terms, they clearly did not.
240 Arrian (Anab. 3.13.1) says that the Macedonian line advanced against the Persians with a move ‘to the right’. Similarly, Diodorus (17.57.6) and Curtius (4.15.1) also say that the Macedonian advance was at an oblique angle. Whether the whole army was initially deployed in this manner is far from certain. However, from the ancient texts it seems clear that this oblique advance was only conducted by the right wing of the army. This would have resulted in the line adopting an oblique angle regardless of whether it had been originally deployed in that way or not. For a discussion on this battle, and the Macedonian advance in particular, see: Fuller, Generalship of Alexander, 163-182; A.M. Devine, ‘Grand Tactics at Gaugamela’ Phoenix 29.4 (1975) 374-385
241 Gabriel, Philip, 26; Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 10) suggest that Philip learnt the value of attacking a point in an enemy line in depth while he was a hostage in Thebes.
242 Plut. Pelop. 23; Xen. Hell. 6.4.12; Polyaenus, Strat. 2.3.15; Excerpta Polyaeni, 14.7; the numbers of both sides at Leuctra may have been close to equal despite the ancient texts providing varying figures (see: Polyaenus, Strat. 2.3.8, 2.3.12; Frontin. Str. 4.2.6; Diod. Sic. 15.52.5; see also: Anderson, Military Theory, 197-198). The Thebans were deployed fifty ranks deep while the Spartans were arrayed twelve deep. This means that, while the Theban contingent was four times deeper than the Spartan one, it was also four times narrower across its frontage.
243 Cleombrotus: Xen. Hell. 6.4.13; Spartan losses: Xen. Hell. 6.4.15; Paus. 9.3.14; Plut. Mor. 193b; Plutarch (Pelop. 23) states that the entire Boeotian phalanx, not just the Thebans, advanced obliquely against the Spartans – although not all of the Boeotian allies would have engaged the Spartans directly but must have engaged some of the allies on the Spartan left wing. Diodorus (15.55.2) states that the Boeotian right was ordered to slowly withdraw to try and draw the Spartan left wing forward.
244 Diod. Sic. 16.4.5-6; Frontin. Str. 2.3.2; see also: Just. Epit. 7.6.7
245 Plut. Pel. 18; see also: Diod. Sic. 16.86.1-6
246 Arr. Anab. 1.6.10
247 E. Badian, ‘The Battle of the Granicus: A New Look’ Ancient Macedonia II (1977) 292
248 Gabriel, Philip II, 24
249 Gabriel, Philip II, 24; Hammond, ‘Philip as Hostage’, 357
250 For the presence of the Boeotian cavalry at Leuctra see: Xen. Hell. 6.4.13; Kromayer and Veith, in their topographical reconstruction of the battle and the deployment of the various contingents involved (Map 28 – Leuktra 371 v. Chr. Schlachtkarte) show the Theban infantry striking the Spartan line between the first and second morai while their left flank is protected by their cavalry. See: Kromayer, J. and Veith, G., Schlachten-Atlas zur Antiken Kreigsgeschichte (revised by R. Gabriel (ed.) and rereleased as The Battle Atlas of Ancient Military History (Canadian Defence Academy Press, Ontario, 2008) 32. Cary (‘Thebes’ in J.B. Bury, S.A. Cook and F.E. Adcock (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 6 – Macedon 401–301BC (Cambridge University Press, 1933) 82) suggests that the novel tactics used at Leuctra for which Epaminondas became famous were not the deployment of a deep phalanx nor the arrangement of an oblique line (both of which had been used in the past, particularly by the Thebans) but was the co-ordinated use of infantry and cavalry; an innovation that later became the trademark tactic of the Macedonians. Tudela (‘The Hoplite’s Second Shield – Defensive Roles of Greek Cavalry’, AncWar 2:4 (2008) 36, 38) calls the cavalry ‘the hoplite’s second shield’ and states that one of the defensive roles of a contingent of cavalry was to protect the flanks (particularly the left) of an advancing hoplite phalanx; see also: I.G. Spence, The Cavalry of Classical Greece (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993) 151–162.
251 Diod. Sic. 16.4.5-6; Frontin. Str. 2.3.2; see also: Just. Epit. 7.6.7
252 Ael. Tact. Tact. 18; in chapter 39 Aelian states that Philip invented the cavalry wedge. However, this may be more a case of its adoption into the Greek world rather than its actual creation.
1 Author’s illustrations
2 M. Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’ BCH 94:1 (1970) 96-98
3 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 98; Sheppard (Alexander the Great at War (Osprey, Oxford, 2008) 54) says the butt is bronze. This is clearly incorrect.
4 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’ 96
5 N. Sekunda, The Army of Alexander the Great (Osprey, Oxford, 1999) 28; N. Sekunda, Macedonian Armies after Alexander 323-168BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2012) 15
6 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 28
7 Everson (Warfare in Ancient Greece (Sutton Publishing, Stroud, 2004) 177) says that this butt is from a spear rather than a sarissa. However, the weight of the butt would make it much more suitable to a pike.
8 Everson, Warfare, 177
9 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 28
10 For details of finds of the hoplite sauroter from Olympia see: H. Baitinger, Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2000) 224–231, pl.59–62. For the average characteristics of the common sauroter of the hoplite spear see: C.A. Matthew, C.A., A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2012) 4-5
11 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 28
12 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 98
13 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 98
14 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 101
15 Dickinson (‘Length Isn’t Everything – Use of the Macedonian Sarissa in the Time of Alexander the Great’ JBT 3:3 (2000) 51-62), for example, uses a weapon equipped with the large head in his examination of the forces required to balance and reposition the weapon. See also: N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman (Duckworth, London, 1980) 32; S. English The Army of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 20; R. Gabriel, Philip II of Macedonia – Greater than Alexander (Potomac, Washington, 2010) 65; J.R. Mixter, ‘The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great’ AncW 23.2 (1992) 23; W. Heckel and R. Jones, Macedonian Warrior – Alexander’s Elite Infantryman (Osprey, Oxford, 2006) 6, 13; A.M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1999) 140; G.T. Griffith, ‘Philip as a General and the Macedonian Army’ in M.B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Ekdotike Athenon, Athens, 1980) 65; R. Sheppard (ed.), Alexander the Great at War (Oxford, Osprey, 2008) 54; G. Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange (Il Cerchio, Rome, 2011) 113; B. Bennett and M. Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281BC Vol.II: Battles and Tactics (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 4; A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 260; W. Heckel, The Conquests of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 16
16 M.M. Markle, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armour’ AJA 81.3 (1977) 325
17 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325
18 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325; see also: P.M. Petsas, ‘Ἀνασκοφὴ ἀρχαίου νεκροταφείου Βεργίνης [1960-1961]’ Archaeologikon Deltion 17A (1961-1962) 230 pl.146a
19 M.M. Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon’ AJA 82.4 (1978) 487
20 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 488
21 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325; Petsas,’Ἀνασκοφὴ’, 235-236
22 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325; Interestingly, Markle does not state why he believes that a 34cm head is too big for a hoplite spear but a 31cm head is sufficient.
23 G. Sotiriades, ‘Das Schlachtfeld von Chäronea und der Grabhügel der Makedonen’ AthMitt 28 (1903) 309
24 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325-326; interestingly, in a later article (‘Use of the Sarissa’, 490-491) Markle suggests that the Macedonian infantry were not using the sarissa at Chaeronea which would then dismiss his own conclusion about the head discovered there. Conversely, Sotiriades (‘Das Schlachtfeld von Chäronea’, 301-330) argued that the heads found at Chaeronea were too big to be from hoplite spears but were more suitable for sarissae.
25 J. Champion, Pyrrhus of Epirus (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 24; Champion therefore concludes that, as Olynthus was sacked in 349BC and the battle of Chaeronea, at which the sarissa was used, took place in 338BC, the sarissa had to have been invented at a point in time between 349BC and 338BC during the reign of Philip II.
26 M.M. Markle, ‘Macedonian Arms and Tactics Under Alexander the Great’ in B. Bar-Sharrar and E.N. Borza (eds.), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1982) 89; see also: P. Connolly, ‘Experiments with the Sarissa – the Macedonian Pike and Cavalry Lance – a Functional View’ JRMES 11 (2000) 103
27 Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 107
28 Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 107
29 A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh University Press, 1964) 116-133
30 Snodgrass, Early Greek, 123
31 Snodgrass, Early Greek, 123-126
32 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 2-4
33 Grattius, Cynegetieon, 117-120 – (Macetum immensos libeat si dicere contos. Quam longa exigui spicant hastilia dentes). Sekunda (‘Land Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. Van Wees and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol. I: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 329) similarly states that the sarissa possessed a ‘small iron head’ but does not outline any other details.
34 Sekunda (Macedonian Armies, 14) also dismisses the idea that the large head found at Vergina has come from a sarissa but suggests that it may have come from the spear of a member of the Royal bodyguard and that its size was a mark of distinction.
35 N.G.L. Hammond, The Genius of Alexander the Great (Duckworth, London, 2004) 13
36 See also: Connolly (‘Experiments’, 106) who reaches this same conclusion.
37 Pliny (E), HN, 35.110; see also: M. Bieber, ‘The Portraits of Alexander the Great’ PAPS 93.5 (1949) 387
38 For a discussion of the fresco in Kinch’s tomb see: Kinch, ‘Le tombeau de Naiusta’, 281-288
39 C. Nylander, ‘The Standard of the Great King: A Problem with the Alexander Mosaic’ OpRom 14.2 (1983) 33
40 Koepfer (‘The Sarissa’, AncWar 3.2 (2009) 37) states that the weight of the head was 970g. This seems to be a typographical error for the weight of the smaller head found at Vergina (97g).
41 Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 107
42 A ‘butt-cap’ is suggested by the diminutive noun styrakion (στυράκιον) used by Thucydides (2.4.3) to distinguish it from the more elongated styrax (στύραξ) – another name for the larger spike on the end of the hoplite spear.
43 Markle, ‘Spear’, 325
44 Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 98
45 For example see: Markle ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 323, Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 103; Andronicos, ‘Sarissa’, 105-107; Gabriel, Philip II, 65; Hammond, King Commander and Statesman, 32; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 13; P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (Greenhill Books, London, 1998) 69: Koepfer, ‘The Sarissa’, 37; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54, 81; Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange, 113; Bennett and Roberts, Wars of Alexander’s Successors II, 4
46 Dickinson, ‘Length Isn’t Everything’, 52-53
47 English (Army of Alexander, 19) dismisses this idea that the tube is for connecting two halves of a sarissa together by suggesting that a join could not be maintained in such a heavy piece of equipment. However, as is shown throughout this work, a sarissa made in two parts is easily held together quite effectively through the use of a small connecting tube based upon the find made at Vergina by Andronicos (see Plates 13, 15-17).
48 This idea is also favoured by some scholars. For example see: Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 14: Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54
49 For modem accounts of attempts to retrace the route of Alexander’s campaign and the difficult nature of the terrain, for example at Aornus (Pir-Sar) in Pakistan, see: A. Stein, On Alexander’s Track to the Indus (Asian Publications, Lucknow, 1985) 120-134; M. Wood, In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (BBC Worldwide, London, 2001) 178-182
50 Plut. Pyrr. 25; Dion. Hal. 20.10-12
51 Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa’, 492; see also: Griffith, ‘Philip as a General’ in Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon, 59
52 S. English, The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2011) 29
53 See: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 12-14
54 For the reason why a head with a weight of 174g was used in this calculation, and for the formula used to calculate the point of balance, see the following section on ‘The Balance of the Sarissa’ (page 81).
55 B. Cotterrell and J. Kamminga, Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology: An Introduction to the Mechanics of Ancient and Traditional Material (Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1990) 163-175
56 Arr. Anab. 3.26.3
57 Curt. 7.1.9
58 Curt. 9.7.19
59 Diod. Sic. 17.100.6
60 Polyaenus, Strat. 2.38.2
61 Diod. Sic. 17.100.2-7
62 P. McDonnell-Staff, ‘Hypaspists to Peltasts: The Elite Guard Infantry of the Antigonid Macedonian Army’ Ancient Warfare 5.6 (2012) 22; Bosworth (Conquest and Empire, 260-261) also suggests that phalangites carried a pike and a spear based upon the descriptions of the equipment carried by Coragus in his ‘heroic duel’ (Curt. 9.7.19; Diod. Sic. 17.100.2) and that ascribed to the ‘Macedonian phalanx’ of the Roman emperor Caracalla (Dio. 78.7.1-2).
63 Plut. Mor. 197c
64 For example see: Hdt 1.52, 7.69; Soph. Tr. 512, 856; Pindar, Nemean 10.60
65 Plut. Mor. 331b
66 Herodotus (1.56) suggests that the original ‘Macedonons’ were not even indigenous to Greece, but were part of the migrations of Dorian peoples who, after moving southward from central Europe in the tenth century BC, later settled in the Peloponnese. Similarly, Demosthenes’ Third Philippic (9.31) states that Philip II ‘is not only no Greek, nor [is he] related to the Greeks, but [he is] not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but [he is] an annoying scoundrel from Macedonia – where it has never been possible to buy a decent slave’. Demetrius of Phaleron, a late fourth century writer whose work is cited by Polybius (29.21), states that around 400BC the name of the Macedonians had hardly even been heard of due to the obscurity of their kingdom.
67 Arr. Anab. 4.8.8-9
68 For Hammond’s discussion of the armament of the Guards see: N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Various Guards of Philip II and Alexander III’ Historia 40.4 (1991) 396-418
69 Death of Cleitus: Curt. 8.1.45; execution of Philotas: Curt. 7.1.9
70 Plut. Alex. 51
71 IG IV2 1.121-122; see: E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein, Asclepius – A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1945) no.423
72 English (Army of Alexander, 19-20) says that the sarissae belonging to the troops under the command of Alexander the Great were carried in wagons as part of the army’s baggage train, and that the phalangites carried normal hoplite spears while they were on the march through difficult terrain – although he does concede (p.24) that there is no reference to either Philip or Alexander requisitioning large amounts of hoplite weaponry. Following Markle, English also suggests (p.22) that the Macedonians may have only used the sarissa at the battle of Gaugamela in 331BC as the terrain at other engagements would have made wielding it difficult. It is unlikely that an army as professionally organized as the Macedonians after the time of Philip would have two sets of arms for each man due to the logistical and operational problems of such an exercise. It is more likely that a sarissa that could be divided into two halves was used, as this would allow the weapons to be easily transported by each man and provide a certain level of tactical flexibility which could be utilized depending upon the nature of the terrain and the engagement. Furthermore, the lengthy sarissa is actually much better suited for engagements such as river crossings (for example: Alexander’s battles at Granicus and Issus) than a shorter spear is (see the chapter The Anvil in Action).
73 Livy 35.27-30
74 Livy 35.27
75 M.F. Williams, ‘Philopoemen’s Special Forces: Peltasts and a New Kind of Greek Light-Armed Warfare (Livy 35.27)’ Historia 53.3 (2004) 260
76 Plut. Mor. 183a
77 The name for the cavalry lance (xyston – ξυστόν) derives from the word ξέω meaning to ‘scrape’ or ‘carve’. Sekunda (‘Land Forces’, 345) translates the term as ‘whittled down’. It seems that the cavalry lance was a shortened version of the infantry pike – with additional differences in the configuration of the butt. Despite these differences, the artistic representations of this weapon show that it was still lengthy.
78 Arr. Anab. 1.15.5
79 Greek lances: Xen. Eq. 12.12; hoplite spears: AP 6.122, 6.123; other weapons: Strabo 12.7.3; Hdt. 7.92, Xen. Hell 3.4.14, Xen. Cyr. 7.1.2
80 Theophr. Caus. pl. 3.12; quite a number of scholars see this passage of Theophrastus as a reference to the material that the sarissa was made from or simply state that the shaft was made from this wood (for example see: N.G.L. Hammond, ‘What May Philip Have Learnt as a Hostage in Thebes?’ GRBS 38.4 (1997) 367; Hammond, King, Commander and Statesman, 32-33; Gabriel, Philip II, 64; English, Army of Alexander, 17; M. Thompson, Granicus 334BC: Alexander’s First Persian Victory (Osprey, Oxford, 2007) 24; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 13; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 69; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54; I. Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008) 27; P. Manti, ‘The Sarissa of the Macedonian Infantry’ AncW 23.2 (1992) 32. However, this is clearly not the case.
81 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 34; English, Army of Alexander, 18
82 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 33-34; see also English, Army of Alexander, 18
83 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 34, 39
84 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 37-39
85 English (Army of Alexander, 21) says that the foreshaft guard is 2 cubits long. This is clearly incorrect. Even in the smaller system of measurements used by Manti which uses a smaller (33cm) cubit, a tube 17cm in size can in no way be considered 2 cubits long. If the depictions of the socket of the head seen on the Alexander mosaic (which is cited by Manti and English as proof of a foreshaft guard on the sarissa) are taken as 2 cubits in length as English suggests, then the blade of the head would be more than 60cm in length – a size for which there is no archaeological proof and which would greatly alter the balance of the weapon.
86 This is calculated by deducting the thickness of the metal twice (equating to each side of the socket’s diameter) from the overall diameter to determine what the inner size of the socket is.
87 This side of the tube found at Vergina is very rarely shown in images of it.
88 For example see: Markle, ‘Spear’, 324; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 13; Koepfer, ‘The Sarissa’, 37; Sheppard (Alexander the Great at War, 54) simply offers that the shaft was between 3-4cm in diameter.
89 For example see: Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 16
90 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 118-119
91 Tyrt. 1; Hom. Il. 4.47, 19.390; Koepfer (‘The Sarissa’, 37) suggests that the shaft was made from either Cornelian Cherry or Ash, rather than specifically from one or the other. Park (‘The Fight for Asia – the Battle of Gabiene’ AncWar 3.2 (2009) 33) and Sekunda (‘Land Forces’ 329), on the other hand, say that the shaft of the sarissa was only made of Ash. Everson (Warfare in Ancient Greece, 175) says that the shaft of the sarissa may have originally been made from Cornelian Cherry, but that the longer weapons of the later Hellenistic Period were probably made of Ash.
92 Stat. Theb. 7.269; Theo. Caus. Pl. 3.11.3-4
93 Pliny (E) HN 16.228; See also: H. Lumpkin, ‘The Weapons and Armour of the Macedonian Phalanx’ JAAS 58.3 (1975) 197
94 Biton 52 – see E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery Vol.II – Technical Treatises (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971) 71
95 Theo. Caus. Pl. 3.16.1-3, 5.6.2, 5.7.6
96 How a sufficient number of straight pieces of timber to adequately fashion the hundreds or thousands of spear and pike shafts used by their forces were procured by states like ancient Macedon is far from certain. There was a clear preference as to the type of wood used in shield construction (for example see: Theophr. Caus. pl. 5.3.4; Plin. (E) HN 16.77) but whether this wood was cultivated specifically for this purpose or merely obtained by other means is not outlined. Nor is there clear evidence for the cultivation of trees specifically for weapon manufacture. One method of obtaining mass quantities of shafts would have been by splitting larger logs lengthways into sections which could then be shaped into a shaft – most likely with a taper (see: Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 16). Another method would have been by simply using the trunk of a young sapling to fashion a single shaft (as the spoke-shave bearing troops described by Xenophon are likely to have done in the field). This would suggest that some states in ancient Greece had access to large numbers of cultivated trees which may have been specifically grown for the purpose of weapon making, and would indicate that some sort of specialised industry, possibly on a massed scale, for the manufacture of weapons was in effect. Yet another way of obtaining this timber would have been through the process of ‘coppicing’ existing trees. Coppicing is the process whereby numerous shoots of new growth grow from the trunk of an existing tree when it is felled. Depending upon the species of tree, these shoots may grow long and straight. In some instances (again depending upon the species of tree and for how long the new shoots are left to grow before being cut themselves) the shoot may have a uniform thickness along its entire length or a slight taper. The growth of such shoots from the trunks of felled trees was a phenomenon known to the Greeks (see: Theophr. Caus. pl. 2.7.2, 3.7.1-2, 4.16.1-4). However, there is no reference to this (or any other) kind of specialised agricultural technique being used on a mass scale for the production of weaponry. In his study of the use of timber by ancient armies, Meiggs only concentrates on the use of wood in the construction of fleets, fortifications, buildings and siege equipment; with the omission of the use of timber in weapon manufacture. See R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982) 154-217. As such, any suggested means for the procurement of wood by the state for the manufacture of spears, pikes and other weapons can only be considered speculative.
97 Xen. Cyr. 6.2.32
98 Xenophon (Cyr. 6.2.32) states that the fashioning of shafted weapons was an acquired skill. Xenophon (Lac. 11.2) also refers to specialised craftsmen who accompanied Spartan armies in the field. Whether any of these craftsmen were spear makers is not stated.
99 It is interesting to note that the diameter of the tube is not uniform along its length but is smaller at one end. It would seem likely that this smaller end was attached to the forward end of a segmented sarissa – with the elasticity of the metal allowing it to grip onto the shaft. The larger diameter of the other end of the tube could then simply be slotted onto the rearward half of the sarissa when the weapon was assembled.
100 I would like to express my gratitude to the editors of the journal Antichthon for allowing me to reproduce material that had been released in an earlier article (C.A. Matthew, ‘The Length of the Sarissa’ Antichthon 46 (2012) 79-100) in parts of this section.
101 Asclep. Tact. 5.1 – δόρυ δὲ αὖ οὐκ ἔλαττον δεκαπήχεος, ὥστε τὸ προπῖπτον αὐτοῦ εἶναι οὐκ ἔλαττov ἢ ὀκτάπηκυ, oὐ μὴν oὐδὲ μεῖζον ἐτώλεσαν δύο καὶ δέκα πηχέων, ὥστε τὴν πρόπτωσιν εἶναι δεκάπηχυν.
102 Ael. Tact. Tact. 12 δόρυ δὲ μὴ ἔλαττον ὀκταπήχους, τὸ δὲ μήκιστον μέχρι τοῦ δύνασθαι ἄνδρα κρατoῦντα χρῆσθαι εὐμαρῶς. In chapter 1 of his work on tactics, Aelian details many of the sources that he has used as the basis for his research when putting his work together. The sources cited by Aelian include specific works on tactics by Stratocles, Frontinus, Aeneas, Cyneas the Thessalian, Pyrrhus the Epriote and his son Alexander, Clearchus, Pausanias, Evangeleus, Polybius, Eupolemus, Iphicrates, Poseidonius and Brion. Sadly, many of these works have not survived the passing of the centuries and are only briefly mentioned in the works of other writers like Aelian. One interesting omission from the list of sources provided by Aelian is the Tactica of Asclepiodotus. This poses two possibilities. Either a) Aelian borrowed heavily from the earlier work of Asclepiodotus, with which it shares numerous similarities, but did not want to draw attention to the fact that he had done so, or b), as it has been theorised, Asclepiodotus had simply released a work on tactics written by Poseidonius, of whom he was a pupil and whom Aelian does list as a source, under his own name. The question of the true authorship of Asclepiodotus’ work, and therefore Aelian’s potential use of it as a source, will probably never be satisfactorily addressed.
103 A.M. Devine, ‘The Short Sarissa: Tactical reality or Scribal Error?’ AHB 8:4 (1994) 132
104 Theophr. Caus. pl. 3.12; obviously the height of each Cornellian Cherry tree would vary so Theophrastus must only be making a generalization. However, such a generalization would not work unless the tree was compared to something of a standard length – such as a weapon. Indeed, the whole effectiveness of ancient combat using men in a massed formation like the Hellenistic pike-phalanx revolved having weapons that were relatively standardized across all members of a unit or army as this would then influence how those troops could be employed and which tactics and strategies could be used in battle (see following). It is thus not surprising that we find numerous references to both weapons and armour of specific sizes and shapes, for the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans, in the works of the ancient military writers and historians.
105 Polyaenus, Strat. 2.29.2; N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank (A History of Macedonia III 336-167 BC (Oxford University Press, 1988) 262) date this battle to 274 BC; see also: Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 13
106 Polyb. 18.29 – τὸ δὲ τῶν σαρισῶν μέγεθός ἐστι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν ἑκκαίδεκα πηχῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀρμoγὴν τὴν πpὸς τὴν ἀληθειαν δεκατεττάρων.
107 Ael. Tact. Tact. 14
108 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 27
109 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 13
110 Markle, ‘Spear’, 323
111 Everson, Warfare, 175
112 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour 119
113 Ael. Tact. Tact. Praef.; the dedication to Hadrian appears in Robertello’s 1552 edition and Arcerius’ 1613 edition of Aelian’s work. The dedication is then carried into Bingham’s 1616 edition and Augustus’ 1814 edition. The Köchly and Rüstow 1885 edition, on the other hand, has an alternate version of the text where the work is dedicated to Trajan (αὐτόκρατορ Καῖσαρ υἱὲ θεοῦ Tpαϊανὲ σεβαστέ). It seems that this edition is of an earlier version of the work, initially begun under Nerva, for Trajan but which was, as Aelian admits, abandoned only to be later taken up again. Consequently, the later version of the text had its dedication altered to the new emperor, Hadrian.
114 Sekunda (Army of Alexander, 27) suggests that the sarissa in the time of Alexander may have actually been shorter than the length Theophrastus provides even though he is writing only a year after Alexander’s death. What Sekunda does not outline is what, if anything, occurred during this one year period to warrant the pike being lengthened. It seems more likely that Theophrastus is referring to a weapon that was used both during the time of Alexander and the period immediately following when Theophrastus was writing.
115 Hdt. 1.60; AP 12.50
116 Hdt. 2.149 – τῶν ποδῶν μὲν τετραπαλάστων ἐόντων, τοῦ δὲ πήχεος ἑξαπαλάστου; see also: W.F. Richardson, Numbering and Measuring in the Classical World (Bristol Phoenix Press, Bristol, 2004) 29-32
117 Richardson, Numbering and Measuring, 29-32; for examples see: Champion, Pyrrhus, 24; Gabriel, Philip II, 65; English, Army of Alexander, 17, 23-24; W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge University Press, 1930) 14, 28; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior 6, 13: Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 118; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 69; J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1995) 72-73; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54, 82; Sekunda (Macedonian Armies, 13) suggests that a 16 cubit weapon measured 7.92m. This would make the cubit equal to 49.5cm.
118 I. Dekoulakou-Sideris, ‘A Metrological Relief from Salamis’ AJA 94:3 (1990) 445-451; the relief is now in the Piraeus Museum (#5352).
119 That is: 2.0cm x 4 = 8cm per ‘palm’, 4 x 8cm = 32cm per ‘foot’ and 6 x 8 cm = 48cm per cubit.
120 Dekoulakou-Sideris, Metrological Relief (n.17) 449
121 For the Olympic/Peloponnesian foot see: O. Broneer, Isthmia Vol.I: Temple of Poseidon (American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, 1971) 175-180.
122 Connolly (‘Experiments’, 106-107) bases his replica weapons on an Attic cubit of 48.7cm.
123 Broneer, Isthmia, 175-180
124 A. Michaelis, ‘The Metrological Relief at Oxford’ JHS 4 (1883) 339
125 W.B. Dinsmoor, ‘The Basis of Greek Temple Design in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy’ Atti VII Congresso Internazionale di Archologia Classica I (L’Erma di Bretschneider, Rome, 1961) 358-361
126 IG I³ 1453 (M&L 45) – clause 12
127 See: J.V.A. Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History (Cambridge University Press, 1983) 367; H.B. Mattingly, ‘The Athenian Coinage Decree’ Historia 10 (1961) 148-188; H.B. Mattingly, ‘Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire’ Historia 41 (1992) 129-138; H.B. Mattingly, ‘New Light on the Athenian Standards Decree’ Klio 75 (1993) 99-102
128 F. Hultsch, Griechische und Römische Metrologie – 2nd Ed. (Weidmann, Berlin, 1882) 30-34, 697; W. Dörpfeld, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Metrologie 1: Das solonisch-attische System’ Ath. Mitt. VII (Athens, 1882) 277; see also: F. Lammert, ‘Sarisse’ RE Second Series IA (Stuttgart, 1920) col. 2516; Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery, ix
129 Tarn, Military and Naval Developments, 15; W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II (Ares, Chicago, 1981) 169-171
130 Arr. Anab. 5.4.4
131 Arr. Anab. 5.19.1
132 Diod. Sic. 17.88.4; Plut. Alex. 40; Diodorus (17.91.7) also refers to another Indian king, Sopeithes, whose height he says was ‘exceeding (ὑπεpάγων) 4 cubits’.
133 Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II, 170; this was a view shared by Manti (‘The Sarissa’, 40).
134 Tarn, Military and Naval Developments, 15
135 J.R. Mixter, ‘The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great’ AncW 23:2 (1992) 22.
136 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 39-41; Strangely, Manti claims (p.40) that part of the proof of the existence of the 33cm cubit is that the large head, supposedly from a sarissa, found by Andronicos at Vergina measures exactly 1 ½ Macedonian cubits. However, 51cm (the size of the head) is not 1.5 times a small ‘Macedonian’ cubit of 33 cm, nor does it conform with a system incorporating a larger cubit of 45cm (unless it is assumed that the head measures 1 cubit and 2 daktyloi), so the size of the head found by Andronicos cannot be used to definitively support either position in the debate over the size of the cubit. Manti also says that the size of the tube found by Andronicos (17cm) is equal to ½ a bematist’s cubit and that the size of the butt-spike that was found (44.5cm) equals 1 1/3 Macedonian cubits. None of these calculations work out correctly in any system of measurements. For other views on this debate see: Markle, ‘Spear’, 323; Dickinson, ‘Length Isn’t Everything’, 51-52; R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (Penguin, London, 1973) 511.
137 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 41-42; Koepfer (‘The Sarissa’, 37) suggests that Theophrastus, Polybius and Asclepiodotus all used different cubits in their measurements of the sarissa.
138 Markle, ‘Spear’, 323; Lane Fox, Alexander, 511; Dickinson, ‘Length isn’t Everything’, 51-62
139 Markle, ‘Spear’, 323; Lane Fox, Alexander, 511
140 Ath. 10.442b; Pliny (E), HN 6.61-62
141 See Pliny (E), HN 6.61-62; Strabo 11.8.9; a good tabulated summary of these recorded measurements can be found in D.W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978) 157.
142 Engels, Logistics, 158; Heron, Dioptra, 34
143 Strabo 11.8.9
144 In this system 1 daktylos = 1.37cm, 1 palm = 5.5cm, 1ft = 22cm, a cubit = 33cm and a stade (600ft) = 13,200cm or 132m.
145 In this system 1 daktylos = 1.875cm, 1 palm = 7.5cm, 1ft = 30cm, a cubit = 45cm and a stade (600ft) = 18,000cm or 180m.
146 In this system 1 daktylos = 2.0cm, 1 palm = 8.0cm, 1ft = 32cm, a cubit = 48cm and a stade (600ft) = 19,200cm or 192m.
147 In his examination of Alexander’s Bactrian campaign, English (Field Campaigns, 167) shows Alexander’s army taking an indirect route around the mountains separating these two points which, according to the scale on the accompanying map, comes to only 180km. In a direct line, the distance works out to 160km. This is clearly incorrect regardless of which unit of measure is being used.
148 The largest margin of error is Strabo’s calculation of the distance from Prophthasia (Juwain) to Arachoti Polis (Kelat-i-Ghilzai) which he gives as 4,120 stades or 791km in the larger ‘late-Attic’ system. The actual distance is 845km – a difference of around 9%.
149 Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II, 16
150 Manti, ‘The Sarissa’, 40
151 Hdt. 1.68
152 Hdt. 6.117
153 Plut. Thes. 36
154 Tarn, Alexander the Great Vol.II, 170
155 Email correspondence with J. Stroszeck of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 1-4 March 2008; see also: J. Stroszeck, ‘Lakonisch-rotfìgurige Keramik aus den Lakedaimoniergräbem am Kerameikos von Athen’ AA 2 (2006) 101-120; H. van Wees, Greek Warfare – Myths and Realities (Duckworth, London, 2004) 146-147; C.F. Salazar, The Treatment of War Wounds in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Brill, Leiden, 2000) 233-234; W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War – Part IV (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985) 133-134; L. van Hook, ‘On the Lacedaemonians Buried in the Kerameikos’ AJA 36.3 (1932) 290-292.
156 A. Schwartz, ‘Large Weapons, Small Greeks: The Practical Limitations of Hoplite Weapons and Equipment’ in D. Kagan and G.F. Viggiano, Men of Bronze – Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (Princeton University Press, 2013) 165-167
157 Comparably, Vegetius (Mil. 1.5) states that both Roman cavalrymen and front line legionaries of the fourth century AD should be between 172cm and 177cm in height. This further suggests that an average height of around 170cm for the Greeks of the earlier Classical period is not implausible.
158 Asclep. Tact. 5.1
159 Ael. Tact. Tact. 12
160 K. Liampi, Der makedonische Schild (Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 1998) 52-55, pl.l; P. Adam-Veleni, ‘Χάλκινη ασπίδα από τή Βεγόpα τής Φλωρίνας’ Ancient Macedonia 5.1 – Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium, Thessaloniki (1993) 17-28; see also: Sekunda, ‘Land Forces’, 337; Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 18; for finds of other shields (or parts thereof) which have been given similar estimates of size see: D. Pandermalis, ‘Basile[ōs Dēmētr]iou’ Myrtos: Mnēme Toulίas Vokotopoulou (Thessaloniki, 2000) xxi; P. Juhel, ‘Fragments de “boucliers macédoniens” au nom de Roi Démétrios trouvés à Staro Bonce (République de Macédoine)’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigrafik 162 (2007) 165-180
161 Liampi, Schild, 53; K. Liampi, ‘Der makedonische Schild als propagandistiches Mittel’ Meletemata 10 (1990) 157-171; see also: Adam-Veleni, (‘Χάλκινη ασπίδα’, 17-28) who estimates the diameter of the Vegora shield as 73.6cm and may be the source for Liampi’s later figure.
162 N.G.L. Hammond, ‘A Macedonian Shield and Macedonian Measures’ ABSA 91 (1996) 365
163 Hammond, ‘Macedonian Shield’, 365; Hammond also points out ([pg. 365] n. 6) that the military fortifications at Dion and Thessaloniki, and the heroön at Yiannitsa, were all built using the 48cm cubit standard. This shows that the Macedonians were using a system of measurements incorporating a cubit much larger than most previous scholars have suggested. Markle, in his examination of a monument found in Macedonia containing representations of various shield types, cites several other monuments, reliefs and tomb paintings where small round shields are depicted with a diameter of around 75cm and larger round shields are depicted with a diameter of around 95cm. Markle interprets the smaller shields as being the Macedonian peltē and the larger ones being representations of the hoplite aspis. In both cases Markle states that the shields are depicted life size. However, while the size of the aspis could range from 80-122cm, the archaeological evidence indicates that the peltē was around 64-66cm. Thus the representations of shields that Markle cites are actually slightly bigger than life size – but both to the same degree. See: M.M. Markle, ‘A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types’ Hespeira 68.2 (1999) 219-254.
164 For a discussion of the mould see: E.M. Moormann, Ancient Sculpture in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam (Allard Pierson Series, Amsterdam, 2000) 187-188; see also: Liampi, Schild, 59-61, pl.5; interestingly, a metrological relief now in the Museum of Lepcis Magna contains a representation of a so called ‘Ptolemaic cubit’ which measures 52.5cm. Such a system of measures would incorporate a ‘foot’ of 45cm. However, it is clear from the shield mould that the Ptolemies, at least at the time when the mould was in use, were either not using this larger standard (or else the mould would have to be 2 ‘Ptolemaic feet’ or 90cm in diameter) or that they were making shields with a diameter less than the 2 ‘feet’ detailed by Asclepiodotus.
165 See: U. Peltz, ‘Der Makedonische Schild aus Pergamon der Antikensammlung Berlin’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, Bd. 43 (2001) 331-343.
166 Everson, Warfare, 178
167 For example see: Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 14; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 79; English, Army of Alexander, 24; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques: Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (Paris, de Boccard, 1949) 354; J. Kromayer and G. Veith, Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer (C.H. Beck, Munich, 1928) 108; Worthington, Philip II, 27.
168 That is, 65cm / 32 daktyloi = 2.03cm per daktylos.
169 If the average diameter of the phalangite shield was greater than 64cm, this would mean that the units of measure used to represent its size were even larger than the 32cm foot.
170 Asclep. Tact. 4.1; close-order: τò πυκvότατov, καθ’ ὅ συνησπικὼς ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων πανταχόθεν διέστηκεν πηχυaῖον διáστημα; intermediate-order: τό τε μέσον, ὅ καὶ πύκνωσιν ἐπονομάζουσιν, ᾧ διεστήκασι πανταχόθεν δύο πήχεις ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων.
171 Ael. Tact. Tact. 14; Polyb. 18.29; Arr. Tact. 11.3
172 For how the hoplite armies of the Classical age conformed to an interval of 45-50cm when deployed in close-order see: C.A. Matthew, ‘When Push Comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat?’ Historia 58:4 (2009) 406-407; numerous ancient writers state that the pikes held by the front ranks of the Hellenistic phalanx projected between the files and beyond the front of the line (see: Arr. Tact. 12; Polybius 18.29; Ael. Tact. Tact. 14; Asclep. Tact. 5.1). The positioning of these weapons between the files make it impossible for phalangites to stand in the 48cm interval of the close-order formation and create a line with ‘interlocked shields’ (or ‘with shields brought together’ as the term synaspismos can be translated) while keeping the shield in a protective position across the front of the body and the weapons poised for combat. It appears that phalangites only adopted a close-order to undertake such manoeuvres as ‘wheeling’ which required their pikes to be carried vertically (see: Ael. Tact. Tact. 31). Ignoring this statement by Aelian, some scholars have come up with different theories and models for how a file of phalangites may have stood in order to fit into a close-order interval and still engage in combat; with the men standing almost side-on (for example see: J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1980) 72-73; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 109). Such models seem incorrect as they do not conform with the terminology (in such models the shields of the phalangites are neither ‘interlocked’ nor are they ‘brought together’), the shield is removed from its protective position across the front of the body, and/or the phalangite is contorted into a position which would make the effective use of his weapon all but impossible. This suggests that the close-order formation was only used by troops armed as Classical hoplites to create a close-order ‘shield wall’ or by phalangites who were holding their pikes vertically while undertaking particular drill movements, as Aelian states.
173 Arr. Tact. 12.7-τὸ δὲ μέγεθος τῶν σαρισῶν πόδας ἐπεῖχεν ἑκκαίδεκα.
174 For the details of the reforms of Iphicrates see pages 11-12.
175 Excerpta Polyaeni, 18.8
176 See: Asclep. Tact. 5.1; Ael. Tact. Tact. 13.3; Arr. Tact. 12.3; Polyb. 18.29
177 Plut. Aem. 19
178 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 119; Hammond, King, Commander and Statesman, 32
179 Hammond, ‘Macedonian Shield’, 366. This is additionally strange considering Hammond is one of the scholars who suggests that an even-fronted phalanx may have been used.
180 Such a formation was tested using volunteers armed with staves by Delbrück (Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte I (G. Stilke, Berlin, 1900) 404) who seems to have had no trouble using it. However, he does not elaborate on whether he tested how the formation would work if members in the front ranks started to fall as detailed above.
181 Markle, ‘Spear’, 324, 326; Mixter (‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 24) clearly states that the butt was ‘required as a counterweight for the heavy sarissa head’.
182 Asclep. Tact. 5.1: δόρυ δὲ αὖ oὐκ ἔλαττον δεκαπήχεος, ὥστε τὸ προπῖπτοναὑτοῦ εἶναι οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ ὀκταπηχυ, οὐ μὴν οὐδε μεῖζον ἐτέλεσαν δύο καὶ δέκα πηχέων, ὥστε τὴν πρόπτωσιν εἶναι δεκάπηχυν
183 Ael. Tact. Tact. 14: τὸ δὲ τῶν σαρισσῶν μέγεθός ἐστι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν ἑκκαίδεκα πηχῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀλήθειαν δεκατεσσάρων. τoύτων δὲ δύο πήχεις ἀφαιρεῖται τὸ μετaξὺ τoῖν χεροῖν διάστημa τῆς προβολῆς. αι δὲ λοιπαι δέκαδυο πήχεις προπίπτουσι πρὸ τῶν σωμάτων. Similarly, Arrian (Tact. 12) says that the pike of the Iphicratean peltast ‘approached’ 16 Greek feet (512cm or just less than 11 cubits) in length. Of this length, Arrian says that four Greek feet (128cm or just under 3 cubits) were taken up with the grip so that the weapon extended 12ft (384cm or 8 cubits) beyond the bearer (τῶν σαρισῶν πόδας ἐπεῖχεν ἑκκαίδεκα καὶ τoύτων οι μὲν τέσσαρες ἐς τὴν χεῖρά τε τoῦκατέχοντος καὶ τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα ἀπετείνοντο, οι δώδκα δὲ προεῖχον πρὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἐκάστου τῶν πρωτοστατῶν). This provides yet another correlation between the Iphicratean peltast and the subsequent Hellenistic phalangite.
184 Polyb. 18.29
185 For example see, Mixter, ‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 24; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 118; English, Army of Alexander, 21; A. Smith, ‘The Anatomy of Battle – Testing Polybius’ Formations’ AncWar 5.5 (2011) 41-45; Sheppard, Alexander the Great, 54, 83; Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange, 62-63; Hammond, Genius of Alexander, 14; Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 16
186 Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 103; I am fortunate enough to be in possession of one of the sarissae that Markle had made for the filming of a Japanese documentary in 2002. These mock pikes had no butt-spike and a fìbreglass replica of the large ‘head’ found at Vergina (which gives the weapon a relatively central point of balance), and a 5.1m shaft 35-38mm thick. The shaft alone weighs 4.8kg and, if a metallic head and butt was attached, the complete weapon would weigh over 6kg – in the press release about the filming of the documentary it was stated that the pike weighed 8kg (see: http://www.une.edu.au/news/releases2002/September/110-02.html). Due to the sheer length and weight of the pike (at either 6kg or 8kg), and the absence of a heavy butt (which would shift the point of balance towards the rear of the weapon), it is very difficult to deploy this weapon in a combative stance and keep the tip off the ground, while holding it at the correct point of balance 2 cubits from the rearward end, and maintain it in this position for any more than a few minutes. Thus, in agreement with Connolly, I can only state that a weapon of this weight and configuration seems to be particularly unsuitable for a combat situation and, as such, it seems more likely that the sarissa was lighter and more manageable. For further discussion on the replicas used by Markle in his experiments see: P. Manti, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Again’ AncW 25.2 (1994) 77-91.
187 Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 103; see also: Connolly, Greece and Rome, 77; Connolly goes on to suggest that if Markle and Andronicos had considered this, their conclusions might have been very different. Interestingly, Connolly also states (‘Experiments’, 109) that a replica sarissa that he made for experimentation (based upon the small (97g) head and butt found at Vergina, and with a tapered shaft 5.84m in length) had a point of balance 35cm in front of the 4 cubit mark given by Polybius (i.e. about 227cm from the rear end). In his earlier book (p.77) he stated that this same configuration created a point of balance right on Polybius’ 4 cubit mark. Regardless, this cannot be correct. Even a weapon with a uniform shaft using these attachments will have a point of balance only 66cm from the rear end rather than Connolly’s 227cm. Additionally, Connolly states (‘Experiments’, 109) that a similar weapon, but with the 235g head described by Markle, will have a point of balance 48cm ahead of Polybius’ 4 cubit mark (i.e. 240cm from the rear tip). Again, this cannot be correct as even a weapon with a uniform shaft configured in this manner would have a point of balance 117cm from the rear end. With additional weight distributed to the back due to a tapering of the shaft, the point of balance would shift even further rearward. Sekunda (Army of Alexander, 28) says it is uncertain whether the sarissa possessed a butt or not. However, the one thing that definitively proves that it did, is that a large weight on the rear end of the shaft is required to give the weapon the correct point of balance.
188 English, Army of Alexander, 16
189 English, Army of Alexander, 20
190 English (Army of Alexander, 20) says that the head of the sarissa was 51cm long and 1.22kg in weight. This is clearly taken from the find made by Andronicos. English also says that the butt of the sarissa was 45 cm long and weighed 1.04kg. While this is slightly inconsistent with the data given by Andronicos, English’s characteristics are clearly taken from this find. Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 13) also use the large head and butt found at Vergina in their examinations. However, even a cursory glance at these figures shows that the head is heavier than the butt and, therefore, any weapon using both of these attachments would not have a rearward point of balance. Clearly such implications have not been considered by these scholars.
191 Plutarch (Aem. 20) specifically states that the sarissa was wielded in both hands.
192 Polyb. 18.30; Ael. Tact. Tact 14
193 Dickinson (‘Length Isn’t Everything’, 52) says that the hands were separated by only 50cm. This seems unlikely regardless of which model for the position of the grip is being considered. To maintain a solid grip on the weapon, the hands would need to be spaced at least 70cm apart. This distance, plus the amount of the butt beyond the socket, and the thickness of the shield, equals the 96cm of a 2 cubit spacing for the grip.
194 See: P.J. Callaghan, ‘On the Date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon’ BCIS 28.1 (1981) 117; Markle, ‘Shield Monument’, 248-249; Liampi (Schild, 81-82) also dates this plaque to the second century BC.
195 Some modern works contain illustrations of how some scholars perceive the phalanx deployed while wielding the pikes in the Polybian manner. In all of these illustrations, the last 2 cubits of the weapon project into the interval occupied by the man behind. For example see: Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange, 62; a deployment with weapons wielded in this manner poses considerable problems with the proper functioning of the phalanx (see following).
196 Note: for ease of representation the weapon held by the man in the second rank has been removed from this image.
197 Note: for ease of representation any part of the weapon held by the man in the second rank that extends forward of his shield has been removed from this image.
198 Polyb. 18:30
199 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 119
200 Sekunda (Army of Alexander, 27) suggests that the sarissa possessed a head smaller than a hoplite spear so that it could more easily penetrate armour. However, not only was a head with a weight similar to that of a hoplite spear required to give the sarissa its correct point of balance, but the hoplite spear could easily penetrate the bronze plate armour of the day (see: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 130-146).
201 Sheppard, Alexander the Great, 54; Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 260
202 Markle, ‘Spear’, 324
203 Markle, ‘Spear’, 334
204 Markle, ‘Spear’, 324
205 Gabriel (Philip II, 65) says the weight of the shaft was 4.25kg which is not overly different even though his calculations are based upon a 12 cubit weapon but using a smaller cubit of 45cm in length.
206 Tarn, (Military and Naval Developments, 12) suggests that the pike, while longer, was probably lighter than the hoplite spear. This is clearly wrong. Not only was the shaft of the sarissa thicker and longer than that of the hoplite spear (35mm in diameter and just over 5m long for the sarissa compared to 25mm in diameter and just over 2.5m long for the hoplite spear), the butt of the sarissa (1,070g for the Vergina find) was also considerably heavier than that of the hoplite spear (average 329g). Just the shaft of the sarissa (4.07g) was nearly triple the weight of the average hoplite spear which weighed just over 1.4kg. How Tarn came to such a conclusion is not outlined. Mixter (‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 24-25) says that the sarissa weighed 6.5kg which he states is seven times more than the longest spear. This is also clearly incorrect. Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 13) suggest that the sarissa weighed between 6.3kg and 6.8kg. However, they were basing their calculations on the larger head found at Vergina which was not part of the sarissa.
207 Connolly (‘Experiments’, 103) notes how the sarissa re-created by Markle, using the large head found at Vergina, weighed 6.58kg (see also: Markle ‘Spear’, 324). This figure is also given by Gabriel (Philip II, 65) and Mixter (‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 25). However, as has been shown, this larger head is unlikely to have come from a sarissa, and therefore Markle’s calculations need to be revised. If the larger head (1,235g) is replaced with one weighing 174g, the overall weight of Markle’s reconstruction would have been 5.5kg – the same weight as given above.
1 A.M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1999) 114
2 Asclep. Tact. 5.1; τῶν δὲ φάλαγγος ἀσπίδων ἡ Μακεδονικη χαλκῆ ὀκτωπάλαιστος, οὐ κοίλη; Anderson (‘Shields of Eight Palms’ Width’ CSCA 9 (1976) 1-6) suggests that Asclepiodotus’ reference to the best shield being ‘not too hollow’ (as he interprets it) is actually advice that the peltē should be considerably more concave than the hoplite aspis. As proof of this he cites various artistic images which depict a shield (either peltē or aspis) which are distinctly ‘bowl-like’. However, such depictions go against the archaeological evidence which suggest that the peltē was relatively flat and it can only be assumed that the depiction of shields with a more pronounced curvature is the result of the artistic medium employed and the skill of the artisan. Similarly Markle ‘A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types’ Hesperia 68.2 (1999) 247-249) uses imagery from Hellenistic coins to suggest that two different types of shield were used – one with a pronounced bowl and the other that was relatively flat. However, due to the small size of the coins cited, the detail of the shield being depicted can hardly be considered totally accurate and, as noted, a deeply concave shield goes against the archaeological evidence.
3 Ael. Tact. Tact. 12; ἀσπὶς μὲν oὖν ἐστιν [η] ἀρίστη χaλκῆ, Μακεδονική, οὐ λίαν κοίλη, ὀκταπάλaιστος.
4 The previous scholarly contention over the size of the cubit and other associated units of measure in the Hellenistic world has led to earlier scholars suggesting a smaller size of 60cm for the Macedonian shield based upon the descriptions given by Asclepiodotus and Aelian and the use of a ‘foot’ of 30cm (for example see: M.M. Markle, ‘Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon’ AJA 82.4 (1978) 326; R. Gabriel, Philip II of Macedonia – Greater than Alexander (Potomac, Washington, 2010) 64; J.R. Mixter, ‘The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great’ AncW 23.2 (1992) 24; N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman (Duckworth, London, 1980) 32; W. Heckel and R. Jones, Macedonian Warrior: Alexander’s Elite Infantryman (Osprey, Oxford, 2006) 14; P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (Greenhill Books, London, 1998) 70, 79; S. English, The Army of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 24; G. Cascarino, Tecnica della Falange (Rome, Il Cerchio, 2011) 21, 60, 105-110. Other scholars simply offer a range for the size of the Macedonian shield between 60-75cm (for example see: T. Everson, Warfare in Ancient Greece (Sutton Publishing, Stroud, 2004) 178; P. McDonnell-Staff ‘Hypaspists to Peltasts: The Elite Guard Infantry of the Antigonid Macedonian Army’ Ancient Warfare 5.6 (2012) 22; A. Smith ‘The Anatomy of Battle – Testing Polybius’ Formations’ AncWar 5.5 (2011) 43; R. Sheppard (ed.), Alexander the Great at War (Osprey, Oxford, 2008) 54, 84). Hatzoupoulos and Juhel (‘Four Hellenic Funerary Stelae from Graphyra, Macedonia’ AJA 113.3 (2009) 426), on the other hand, state that the shield was 64cm in diameter. Similarly, Connolly (‘Experiments with the Sarissa – the Macedonian Pike and Cavalry Lance – a Functional View’ JRMES 11 (2000) 109), created a replica shield 63 cm in diameter for his experiments. While both of these statements may be based upon the physical evidence (Connolly, for example, based his replica on the size of the Pergamum shield), a standard unit of measure incorporating a foot of 32cm and a cubit of 48cm for the Hellenistic period does not seem to have been considered. Anderson (‘Shields of Eight Palms’, 1-6) suggests that Macedonian shields were actually larger than this. Anderson bases his conclusion on such things as the size of the depiction of the Macedonian shield in the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles relative to other parts of the panoply, particularly armour, depicted within the same image. From this analysis he suggests that the Macedonian shield was closer in size to the hoplite aspis (somewhere around 80cm across). Sekunda (Mcedonian Armies after Alexander 323-168BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2012) 5) similarly suggests that the shields depicted on the Pergamon Plaque are of a larger variety than the phalangite peltē. However, such conclusions assume that all of the elements of the panoply in the images are drawn to the same scale. Anderson further cites the depiction of shields on the Monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi as proof that the Macedonian shield was larger than 64cm; see also: A.J. Reinach, ‘La frise du monument de Paul-Émile à Delphes’ BCH 34 (1910) 444-446. However, these shields are depictions of the aspis rather than the peltē. Strangely, Anderson even admits that ‘the only round shield on the monument whose inner surface is visible…has a…porpax and…antilable near the rim, exactly like the traditional Greek hoplite shield’. Anderson also states that ‘Hellenistic artists naturally prefer [to depict] the traditional Greek hoplite aspis’ in their art. This would then throw a question mark over all of Anderson’s conclusions. Pritchett (Ancient Greek Military Practices: Part I (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971) 144-145) suggests that it is safer to follow base conclusions upon archaeological remains rather than an interpretation of passages like that of Asclepiodotus. While Pritchett believed that the archaeological record provided a size of around 80cm for the peltē, both the archaological and literary records more closely correlate to a size of 64cm.
5 N.G.L. Hammond, ‘What May Philip Have Learnt as a Hostage in Thebes?’ GRBS 38.4 (1997) 367; in another work (King, Commander and Statesman, 32), Hammond describes the peltē as a small metal shield; see also: Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 18. These are presumably references to the shield’s covering rather than suggesting that it was only made of metal.
6 B. Bennett and M. Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281BC Vol.II: Battles and Tactics (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 4
7 See Perrin’s translation of Plutarch’s passage (Aem. 20) in the Loeb Classical Library edition.
8 Porpax: Eur. Hel. 1376; Eur. Phoen. 1127; Eur. Tro. 1196; Soph. Aj. 576; Strabo 3.3.6; Plut. Mor. 193e; antilabe: Thuc. 7.65; Strabo 3.3.6
9 E. Kunze, Bericht Über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia – Vol.V (Berlin, Verlag Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1956) 35-68, pl.11-33; E. Kunze, Bericht Über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia – Vol.VI (Verlag Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 1958) 74-117, pl.13-32; M. Andronicos, Olympia (Ekdotike Athenon, Athens, 1999) 31-32, 70, 76; M.T. Homolle, Fouilles de Delphes – Tome V (Ancienne Librairie Thorin et Fils, Paris, 1908) 103-106; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 53; Everson, Warfare, 121-122, 161; P. Cartledge, ‘Hoplites and Heroes: Sparta’s Contribution to the Technique of Ancient Warfare’ JHS 97 (1977) 13; N. Sekunda, Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2004) 10, 50; C.A. Matthew, A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2012) 40.
10 Pliny (E), HN 16.209
11 P. Krentz, ‘Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought’ in D. Kagan and G.F. Viggiano, Men of Bronze – Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (Princeton University Press, 2013) 136.
12 Connolly, in his reconstructions of the pike-phalanx, had his replica peltē made from a dished oak core with a diameter of 63cm (see: Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 109). Connolly states that his replica weighed 8.06kg. This seems far too heavy when it is considered that a larger hoplite aspis made of pine weighs 6-8kg. Strangely, in an earlier work (Greece and Rome, 79) Connolly states that a replica shield that he had made weighed 5kg. Gabriel (Philip II, 64), suggests that a shield 61cm in diameter weighed 5.4kg. These lighter weights seem more likely, as the shield made for this research, fashioned from a pine core 64cm in diameter and approximately 1cm thick, and with a central armband and other fittings, weighs 4.6kg.
13 Mixter, ‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 24; Hammond, ‘Philip as Hostage’, 367; English, Army of Alexander, 23; S. English, ‘Hoplite or Peltast? – Macedonian ‘Heavy’ Infantry’, Ancient Warfare 2:1 (2008) 35; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 14; Everson, Warfare, 178; B. Bennett and M. Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281BC Vol.II: Battles and Tactics (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 4; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 118; J. Pietrykowski, Great Battles of the Hellenistic World (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2009) 15; J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1995) 68; Markle, ‘Shield Monument’, 220; I. Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008) 27; Anderson (‘Shields of Eight Palms’, 1-6) suggests that larger shields, closer in size to the hoplite aspis, could also be carried in this manner. Sekunda (‘Land Forces’ in P. Sabin, H. Van Wees, and M. Whitby, (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol. I: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 338) suggests that the ochane is a hand grip similar to the antilabe of the hoplite aspis. This is clearly incorrect.
14 Hom. Il. 2.388, 5.796, 11.38, 12.401, 14.404, 16.803, 17.290, 18.480; Hdt. 1.171; see also: Matthew, Storm of Spears, 255-256
15 Plut. Cleom. 11
16 Plut. Aem. 19
17 M.M. Markle, ‘The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armour’ AA 81.3 (1977) 326
18 Some scholars suggest that both an armband and shoulder-strap was used to carry the peltē; for example see: M. Thompson, Granicus 334BC: Alexander’s First Persian Victory (Osprey, Oxford, 2007) 24: Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 117-118; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 54
19 For the details of some surviving examples of the porpax see: P.C. Bol, Argivische Schilde (De Gruyter, Berlin, 1989) 126-164
20 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 14
21 For example see: Connolly, ‘Experiments’, 109-111; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 79; Everson, Warfare, 178; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 81
22 Many modern illustrations of the inside of the peltē show the ochane mounted towards the top of the shield (for example see: Connolly, Greece and Rome, 78; Warry, Warfare, 73). It was found in the construction of the phalangite panoplies used in this research that a shoulder-strap mounted in this position did not provide good support for the shield due to the angle of the arm when wielding the sarissa. It seems much more likely that the shoulder-strap was mounted in such a way that it would not only support the shield in a protective position, but also partially take the weight of the heavy sarissa as well. Connolly, in his reconstructive tests, used a peltē with this exact same configuration.
23 Everson, Warfare, 178; see also: Connolly, Greece and Rome, 79
24 Connolly (‘Experiments’, 109) states that the replica used in his experiments had this configuration. Cawkwell (Philip of Macedon (Faber & Faber, London, 1978) 158) simply states that the peltē was carried on the forearm. This seems unlikely.
25 Strangely, the illustration accompanying Thompson’s examination of Alexander the Great’s battle at the Granicus River in 334BC shows the entire phalanx fighting with their shield slung across their back. This cannot be correct. There would be no point in carrying a piece of defensive armament like a shield if it was not going to be placed in a protective position across the front of the body for combat; see: Thompson, Granicus, 74-75.
26 Sekunda (The Persian Army 560-330BC (Osprey, Oxford, 2005) 27) interprets Diodorus’ reference to the reforms of Iphicrates (15.44.2) as saying that the peltē and the aspis were the same size. This is clearly an incorrect reading of the passage as Diodorus specifically states that ‘the Greeks were using shields that were large and difficult to handle. These he discarded and replaced with small round ones of moderate size.’
27 Arr. Anab. 7.11.3; Curt. 4.13
28 Diod. Sic. 17.57-59, 18.63, 19.12-48; Plut. Eum. 13-19;
29 Livy, 37.40
30 Bronze Shields serving with Antigonus at Sellasia (222BC): Polyb. 2.66; with Perseus at Pydna (168BC): Plut. Aem. 18; Livy 44.41; Diod. Sic. 31.8.10; Gold Shields: Plut. Eum. 14; White Shields serving with Antigonus (222BC): Plut. Cleom. 23; at Pydna (168BC): Livy 44.41; Diod. Sic. 31.8.10; for a discussion on whether the ‘Gold Shields’ ever existed or not see: N. Sekunda, The Seleucid Army (Montvert, Stockport, 1994) 14-15; Sekunda, Macedonian Armies, 35-37
31 Polyb. 30.25
32 1 Macc. 6.39
33 Everson, 178
34 SEG 40.524; the whole decree reads: ‘those not carrying the weapons appropriate to them are to be fined according to the regulations: for the armour (kotthybos), two obols, the same amount for the helmet (konos), three obols for the sarissa, the same for the sword (machaira), for the greaves (knemides) two obols, for the aspis a drachma. In the case of officers (hegemons), double [shall be the fine] for the arms mentioned, two drachmas for the breastplate (thorax), a drachma for the half-breastplate (hemithorakion). The secretaries (grammateis) and the chief assistants (archyperetai) shall extract the penalty, after identifying the transgressors to the King (basileus)’ – τοὺς μὴ φέροντας τι τῶν καθηκόντων αὐτοῖς ὅπλων ζημιούτωσαν κατά τα γεγραμμένα· κοτθύβου ὀβολοὐς δύο, κώνου τὸ ἴσον, σαρίσης ὀβολοὺς τρεῖς, μαχαίρας τὸ ἴσον, κνημίδων ὀβολοὺς δύο, ἀσπίδος δραχμήν. Ἑπὶ δὲ τῶν ἡγεμόνων τῶν τε δεδηλωμένων ὅπλων τὸ διπλοῦν καὶ θώρακος δραχμὰς δύο, ἡμιθωρακίου δραχμήν. Λαμβανέτωσαν δὲ τὴv ζημίαν οι γραμματεῖς καὶ οι ἀρχυ[πηρέτ]αι, παραδείξαντες τῶι βασιλεῖ τοὺς ἠθετηκότας.
35 McDonnell-Staff, ‘Hypaspists to Peltasts’, 22
36 Plut. Cleom. 23
37 Hes. Op. 129-234
38 Livy 44.41
39 Liampi’s work (Der makedonische Schild (Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 1998)) is the most comprehensive study of the designs found on Macedonian shields.
40 For a discussion of the developmental stages of these designs, and their influence of pottery decorations, see: P.J. Callaghan, ‘Macedonian Shields, ‘Shield Bowls’ and Corinth: A Fixed Point in Hellenistic Ceramic Chronology?’ AAA 11 (1978) 53-60
41 For an examination of the various designs found of hoplite shields see: G.H. Chase, The Shield Devices of the Greeks in Art and Literature (Ares, Chicago, 1979); Sekunda (Macedonian Armies, 20) suggests that the central design changed with the rise of a new monarch or to commemorate certain events. While this may have been the case in the time of the Successors, it seems that in the time of Alexander the Great, the central motifs were to identify specific units within the army (see following).
42 These symbols are: on coins issued in Macedonia c.335BC – the lightning bolt (see: M.J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrrhidaeus Vol.I and II (British Museum Press, London, 1991) 397-416; C.A. Matthew ‘For Valour: The Shield Coins of Alexander and the Successors’ JNAA 20 (2009/2010) 23 (15-34)); on coins issued in Sardes c.334BC – a bust of Herakles or a caduceus (Price, Coinage in the Name of Alexander, 2546-2614; Matthew, ‘For Valour’ 23); on coins issued in Miletus c.334-333BC – a Gorgon head, a pellet or an axe (Price, Coinage in the Name of Alexander, 2063-2072; Matthew, ‘For Valour’ 23-24); on coins issued in Asia Minor c. 333-332BC – a bust of Herakles (Price, Coinage in the Name of Alexander, 2801-2808a; Matthew, ‘For Valour’ 24); on coins issued from Salamis c.332BC – a Gorgon head (Price, Coinage in the Name of Alexander, 3157-3162a; Matthew, ‘For Valour’ 24).
43 Hephaestion’s cavalry unit carried an image of him after he died (Arr. Anab. 7.14.10). The word Arrian uses (semeion – σημεῖov) can be interpreted as a banner of some kind (as per Thuc. 4.42), or as a design carried on the shield (as per Hdt. 1.171; Eur. Ph. 1114).
44 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 14-15
45 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.10
46 Aen. Tact. 29.4
47 SEG 40.524
48 Plut. Aem. 32
49 P. Dintsis (Hellenistische Helme (Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, Rome, 1986) 169-177) also examines what is known as ‘Egyptian limestone helmets’ (Die Ägyptischen Kalksteinhelme). These are basically stone busts, with very few (if any) details of the face, but with a much higher level of detail of a helmet that is being worn.
50 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 1-23, supplement 1, cards 1-2
51 An example of the mould used to create such helmets is now housed in the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam. It has been suggested that this, and other examples of stone helmet ‘templates’ may actually be store models, put on display in the armour maker’s workshop, so that customers would be able to get an idea of what a finished product may look like. For a discussion of the different theories relating to these ‘templates’ see: E.M. Moormann, Ancient Sculpture in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam (Allard Pierson Series, Amsterdam, 2000), 187, 189-191, pl.88-90.
52 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 23-57, supplement 2, cards 3-4
53 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 57-75, supplement 3, cards 5-6
54 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 75-77, supplement 4, cards 7-8
55 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 77-87, supplement 5, card 9
56 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 87-97, supplement 6, cards 10-11
57 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 135-143, supplement 10, card 17-18
58 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 105-113, supplement 8, cards 13-14
59 A fourth century grave near Salonika contained a Chalchidian helmet (now in the British Museum) which suggests that this type of helmet was still being worn in some areas at this time. See: Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 116.
60 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 113-132, supplement 9, card 15
61 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 97-105, supplement 7, card 12
62 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 143-149, supplement 11, card 19
63 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 149-169, supplement 12, card 20
64 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 173-183, supplement 13, card 21
65 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 183-199, card 22
66 B.M. Kingsley, ‘The Cap that Survived Alexander’ AJA 85 (1981) 39-46
67 Warry, Warfare, 89; the common Corinthian style helmet of the Greek Classical Age, did provide a good level of vision and did not need to evolve in this manner as Warry suggests (see. Matthew, Storm of Spears, 96-101). However, the development of more open-style helmets during the later fifth century BC, and the incorporation of openings for the ears, did improve both the ventilation and the hearing. However, the protection of such helmets was not absolute (as indeed it was not for the Corinthian either). Philip II lost an eye during the siege of Methone in 354BC (Diod. Sic. 16.34.5), and Plutarch (Mor. 339c) details how Tarrias was struck in the eye by a missile during Philip’s siege of Perinthus in 340BC.
68 Afric. Cest. 7.1.53-55
69 For example see: N. Sekunda, The Army of Alexander the Great (Osprey, Oxford, 1999) 27, pl.D-H; J. Warry, Alexander 334-323BC (Osprey, Oxford, 1991) 82; Warry, Warfare, 89; Thompson, Granicus, 74-75; Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 16-17, Pl. A-E; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 79-80
70 Warry, Warfare, 89
71 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 113-132, supp. 9, card 15
72 Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 113-132, supplement 9, card 15. Warry (Warfare, 89) uses the term ‘Thracian’ for both the ridged helmet and for the type with the bulbous extension which is otherwise known as the ‘Phrygian’.
73 Dintsis (Hellenistische Helme, 23-55, 218-233) lists six helmets of this type in the collections of various museums around the world. All are made of bronze and are dated between the fourth century BC and the third century BC. However, the depiction of this style of helmet on coinage, in monumental reliefs, and on grave stele continued well into the second century BC.
74 The large horse hair crests used in the Classical period, and on other helmets used throughout the Hellenistic Period, achieved this same result. For an object falling down upon the wearer, such as an arrow fired in a lob, the easiest way for the missile to penetrate the plate metal of the helmet is to hit the relatively flat surface of the crown of the helmet almost perpendicular so that the largest amount of its impact energy is used to pierce the plate. However, the addition of a crest, ridge or bulbous extension ensures that there are no flat surfaces on the top of the head which an incoming arrow might strike.
75 For the Alexander Sarcophagus see: Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 221-222; for the Pergamum frieze see: Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 230-231; Dintsis (Hellenistische Helme, 289-290) lists the helmets from the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in his category of Glockenhelmes (‘Bell’ Helmets) rather than under the Thracian.
76 See: M. Mitchiner, Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage Vol.I – The Early Indo-Greeks and their Antecedents (Hawkins Publications, Sanderstead, 1975) 21; Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, 215
77 For an excellent photo of this helmet see: Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 26
78 Everson, Warfare, 181; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 80
79 For a comprehensive commentary and overview of the decades old debate over whether Tomb II is that of Philip II or not which, at the time of writing at least, seems to favour that it is, in fact, the tomb of Alexander the Great’s half-brother Philip III, see: M.B. Hatzopoulos, ‘The Burial of the Dead (at Vergina) or The Unending Controversy on the Identity of the Occupants of Tomb II’ Tekmeria 9 (2008) 91-118; for discussions and counter-discussions of the potential occupants of other tombs at Vergina and the possible owners of some of the items found therein see: E.N. Borza, ‘Royal Macedonian Tombs and the Paraphernalia of Alexander the Great’ Phoenix 41.2 (1987) 105-121; N.G.L. Hammond, ‘Arms of the King: The Insignia of Alexander the Great’ Phoenix 43.3 (1989) 217-224
80 Everson, Warfare, 184
81 Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 27, Pl. F-G plus commentaries; Warry (Warfare, 89) also suggests that the painting of helmets, or decorating them with elaborate enamel inlays (such as a mixture of sulphur and copper) was a fairly common practice in the Hellenistic period.
82 Everson, Warfare, 184
83 Everson, Warfare, 183
84 Everson, Warfare, 183
85 Afric. Cest. 1.1.45-50; Ὁλίγα δὲ τoύτων παρεπoίησαν οἱ ἐπίγονοι Μακεδόνες διὰ τὸ τῶν πολέμων ποικίλον, κοινην καὶ κατά Βαρβάρων καὶ πρὸς αὑτοὺς τὴν ὅπλισιν ἐπισκευάσαντες. σημεῖον δὲ [τὸ] ἐλευθέρας τῶν μαχομένων τὰς ὄψεις ὑπò πίλῳ Λακωvικῷ ἐν τῇ Μακεδονικῇ γεγενησθαι. καλοῦσι δὲ χρῆμα καὶ ἐπιτήδευμα [τοῦτο] τὸ τοῦ στρατιώτου βασιλέως.
86 Hatzopoulos and Juhel, ‘Four Hellenic Funerary Stelae’, 426-428
87 Men. Per. 174
88 Snodgrass, Arms & Armour, 125
89 Plut. Mor. 180b; Afric. Cest. 1.1.45-48
90 Antipater, Garland of Philip, 41 – καυσίη ἡ τὸ πάροιθε Μακηδόσιν εὺκολον ὅπλον καὶ σκέπας ὲν νιφετῶι καὶ κόρυς ὲν πτολέμωι ἱδρῶ διψήσασα πιεῖν τεόν
91 SEG 36.1221
92 Ph.Byz. Mech. Syn. 5.77-78
93 For example see the images and discussion of the facade of the Aghios Athanasios tomb in: M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, Makedonikoi Taphoi ston Phoinika kai ston Aghio Athanasio Thessalonikes (Ekdose tou Tameiou Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon, Athens, 2005); M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, ‘Excavating a painted Macedonian tomb near Thessaloniki. An astonishing discovery’ in M. Stamatopoulou, and M. Yeroulanou (eds.), Excavating Classical Greek Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (Beazley Archive and Archaeopress, Oxford, 2002), 91-97; M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, ‘Les peintures funeraires d’Aghios Athanassios’ in S. Descamps-Lequime (ed.), Peinture et coleur dans le monde grec antique (Musée du Louvre, Paris, 2007), 57-67; M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, “La tombe macedoine d’Hagios Athanasios pres de Thessalonique” in A.M. Guimier-Sorbets, M.B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds.), Rois, cites, necropoles: Institutions, rites et monuments en Macedoine (Meletemata 45) (Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens, 2006), 321-331; O. Palagia, “Hellenistic Art” in R. Lane Fox, (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC-300 AD (Brill, Leiden, 2011), 477-493; interestingly, the figures wearing the kausia on this facade are not wearing any other armour whereas those who are wearing armour also wear a metal helmet.
94 C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, ‘Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume’ JHS 113 (1993) 123
95 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 15-16; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 81
96 Afric. Cest. 1.1.25-26
97 Afric. Cest. 1.1.25-28 - ὅ τε πῖλος περὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ κυνῆν [ἔχων] ἐτέραν δὲ ἐπιθήκην χαλκoῦ καὶ ἄλλην έπὶ ἄλλῃ περικεφαλαίαν τυγξάνει πρὸς τὰ ἀπὸ σφευδόνης βλήματα περιθλωμένης μὲν τῆς ἔξω λεπίδος καὶ συvεικoῦσης ὡς μὴ ἐφικέσθαι τὸ πεμφθὲν τoῦ ἐνδοτέρω τῆσ κεφαλῆς ἐπιβλῆματος
98 For a discussion of what the kausia was made from, its shape and other aspects of its use see: Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, ‘Ancient Macedonian Costume’, 123-143
99 Eustathius, Il. 255 – καυσία, ἤ τισ ἠν κάλυμμα κεφaλῆς Μακεδονικὸν ἐκ πίλου, ώς τιάρα, σκέπουσά τε ἀπὸ καὺσωνος καὶ ώς εἰς περικεφαλαίαν συντελoῦσά τι
100 Polyaenus, Strat. 5.44.5
101 G.T. Griffith, ‘MAKEDONIKA: The Macedonians Under Philip and Alexander’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (1956-1957) 3-10; English, Army of Alexander, 25; S. English, The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great (Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2011) 90, 140.
102 Cawkwell, Philip, 158; Snodgrass, Arms & Armour, 117; J. Pietrykowski, ‘In the School of Alexander – Armies and Tactics in the Age of the Successors’ AncWar 3.2 (2009) 23; Mixter (‘Macedonian Sarissa’, 24) says they did not wear cumbersome metal breastplates; Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 15-16) and Sheppard (Alexander the Great at War, 81) suggests not only that armour may not have been worn by members of the rear ranks of the phalanx, but that they did not wear helmets either – only the kausia. Pietrykowski (Great Battles, 15) confusingly suggests that the armour worn by the front ranks of the phalanx was lightened, and that the rear ranks may have worn no armour at all, but then goes on to describe the phalanx as ‘row upon gleaming row of spearheads projecting from a huddled mass of armour and shields’. Worthington (Philip II of Macedonia (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2008) 27) suggests that phalangites did not wear any armour as the densely arrayed series of pikes of the phalanx was protection enough. D. Karunsnithy (‘Of Ox-Hide Helmets and Three-Ply Armour: The Equipment of Macedonian Phalangites as Described through a Roman Source’ Slingshot 213 (2001) 33-40) suggests that men in the rear ranks may have been bare-legged, carried a cheap, mass-produced, wicker shield and a helmet made of leather. See also: D. Lush, ‘Body Armour in the Phalanx of Alexander’s Army’ AncW 38.1 (2007) 27.
103 Hom. Il 2.529
104 Snodgrass (Arms and Armour, 123) says that the trend from the fourth century onwards was to reduce the weight of infantry armour. From the perspective of the Iphicratean reforms of 374BC, this is certainly the case.
105 The barrel-like shape created by wrapping this panel around the body has also led to this style of armour being referred to as a ‘tube and yoke’ or ‘box’ corslet. For further discussions of the evidence for, and construction of, the linothorax see: E. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedonia (Princeton University Press, 1990) 298-299; G.S. Aldrete, S. Bartell and A. Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armour: Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2013) 22-30, 31-57, 58-89
106 P Bardunias, ‘Don’t Stick to Glued Linen – The Linothorax Debate’ AncWar 4.3 (2011) 50
107 Sheppard (Alexander the Great at War, 82) suggests that the linothorax weighed between 5.0-6.3kg. The linothorax made for this research, which was a composite armour with a double layer of pteruges made from 5mm thick ox-hide covered on both sides with 2 layers of linen which were then painted with a white-wash, decorated, sealed, and had the edges reinforced with stitched cloth, resulting in a material 7-9mm thick, weighs 5.1kg.
108 For some of the discussions relating to this armour see: Bardunias, ‘Linothorax Debate’, 48-53; Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armour, 57-68.
109 Bardunias, ‘Linothorax Debate’, 51
110 Aldrete, Bartell and Aldrete, Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armour, 149-159
111 Thompson, Granicus, 24
112 See: Mitchiner, Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage, 21
113 Plut. Alex. 32
114 McDonnell-Staff, ‘Hypaspists to Peltasts’, 24
115 Snodgrass (Arms and Armour, 122) suggests that only cavalry wore metal cuirasses.
116 Paus. 10.26.2
117 Connolly, Greece & Rome, 54-55; see also: Everson, Warfare, 142
118 Snodgrass, Arms & Armour, 50; Connolly, Greece & Rome, 54-59; Everson, Warfare, 142
119 This is based upon the weight of a replica muscled cuirass that was used in the research on the warfare of the Classical Age discussed in Matthew, A Storm of Spears.
120 English, Army of Alexander, 25
121 Connolly, Greece and Rome, 70, 80; Sekunda (Macedonian Armies, 3) similarly suggests that the depiction of the muscled cuirass on the Stele of Nikolaos identifies him as a fìle-leader.
122 Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 117
123 Warry, Alexander, 82
124 Arr. Anab. 1.28.7
125 Diod. Sic. 17.44.2 – διὰ γὰρ τῶν θωράκων λαὶ τῶν ὐποδυτῶν παρεισπίπτουσα ἡ ἄμμος καὶ διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς θερμασίας λυμαινομένη. See also: Curt. 4.3.26. Lush (‘Body Armour’, 20) suggests that the similarities between the accounts of this incident found in Diodorus and Curtius may be indicative of the use of a common source – possibly an eye-witness to the event such as Cleitarchus.
126 Lush (‘Body Armour’, 19) suggests that while there are no specific references to which infantry units were involved in this event, it is clear that the troops were Macedonians rather than mercenaries, and the lack of references to the hypaspists would suggest that they were members of the pike-phalanx.
127 Nepos, Iphicrates, 1.3-4
128 Plut. Alex. 60
129 Diod. Sic. 17.95.4 – ἐκομισθησαν δὲ καὶ πανοπλίαι διαπρεπεῖς πεζοῖς μὲν δισμυρίοις καὶ πεντακισξιλίοις; Curt. 9.3.21 – adduxerat armaque xxv milibus auro et argento caelata pertulerat. It is interesting to note that Diodorus uses the word ‘panoplies’ (παvoπλίαi) while Curtius uses the word ‘arms’ (armaque). As such, none of them specifically say that what is received is armour. Consequently, anything combustible that conforms with this description, such as shields or pike-shafts could be the items (or even part thereof) that were replaced while the older items were burned. Lush (‘Body Armour’, 20) argues that other items, such as ox-hide helmets or non-metallic greaves, may have also been burned.
130 Curt. 9.3.21-22
131 McDonnell-Staff (‘Hypaspists to Peltasts’ 23) suggests that the linothorax was just made of leather (see also: Sekunda, Army of Alexander, 27; Lush, ‘Body Armour’, 23). While it is possible that some sets were made in this manner, descriptions of this type of armour being specifically made from linen (such as Aeneas Tacticus’ use of the term thorakes lineoi (29.4)) suggest that it was either made wholly of layers of cloth glued together, or that it may have been made of leather covered with layers of linen. Everson (Warfare, 192) basing his conclusion of the find of an iron cuirass fashioned in the likeness of a linothorax found in the so-called ‘Tomb of Philip II’ in Vergina, suggests that the armour may have been made from metal plates covered with linen or some other cloth.
132 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2, 48; the term that Aelian uses to describe the additional protective layer is kassides. The translation of kassides is something of a problem. Some have seen this word as a reference to a covering of leather of some kind – possibly scales or even an outer layer of armour, while others interpret it as meaning the attachment of tin plates or scales to the armour, while yet others see it as a reference to metal armour (like chain-mail) – see also n.131 above for the theory that the linothorax was possibly made from metal plates covered with cloth. It is clear from the passage that Aelian is suggesting that the peltasts have some form of additional protection as part of their defensive armament. Unfortunately, there is no clear way of distinguishing what that was by this passage alone.
133 SEG 40.524
134 Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 15) suggest that the Amphipolis Decree makes no mention of armour except for officers without detailing what they consider the kotthybos to be and that, by default, the regular phalangite may have worn the unmentioned linothorax. Anderson (‘Shields of Eight Palms’, 2) similarly suggests that the Amphipolis decree only refers to the armour worn by officers. Conversely, Connolly (Greece and Rome, 80) readily identifies the kotthybos with the linothorax. Everson (Warfare, 190), on the other hand, suggests that the kotthybos was a padded tunic worn under the armour. If this is the case then the wording of the Amphipolis decree would suggest that the regular pikeman only wore a padded tunic and nothing else while the officers wore either a breastplate or half breastplate. It seems more likely that the kotthybos was the linothorax or some other form of lighter armour while the lorica and hemithorakia were plate metal cuirasses. The phalangite would most likely have worn some form of padding under his armour – possibly of wool, sheepskin or leather – to prevent chafing, to provide greater protection and to make the armour more comfortable to wear. However, this should not be confused with an actual padded tunic. Even if the kotthybos is interpreted as a padded tunic of some description, the phalangite was still armoured to a certain extent contrary to what some scholars suggest (see also: Lush, ‘Body Armour’, 18).
135 SEG 40.524
136 Hatzopoulos and Juhel ‘Four Hellenic Funerary Stelae’, 425-428
137 Polyaenus, Strat, 4.3.13
138 Diod. Sic. 20.83.2
139 Plut. Aem. 18, 21; Frontinus (Strat. 3.2.11) describes Charmades, a Ptolemaic general (c.280BC), as also wearing a cloak.
140 The stylised musculature on the front panel of the bronze muscled cuirass served a number of purposes: it was a clear display of wealth and status as this type of armour would have been expensive; it made the wearer look more imposing to an opponent in battle; and the numerous curves on the armour meant that there were very few fiat surfaces on the front. This provided a greater level of protection to the wearer as any weapon impact which struck a curved section of the armour would require more energy to penetrate it and weaker blows would simply be deflected by the rounded muscles on the metal plate (see The Penetration Power of the Sarissa from page 225). An almost complete example of a Hellenistic muscled cuirass was found at Prodromi in Epirus. This armour has been dated to 330BC – making it contemporary with the reign of Alexander the Great. Interestingly, this cuirass is made of iron rather than bronze and has gold fittings. While iron provided a better level of protection than bronze, as a material, it is much harder to work with and much more difficult to fashion into a thin plate which demonstrates the level of craftsmanship attained in this area by this time. The lower rim of the cuirass (now heavily damaged) seems to be quite flared which suggests that this was for a cavalry officer. Regardless, both the material and the gold fittings indicate this as the armour of a wealthy noble (see: A. Choremis, ‘Metallimos Oplismos apo tou tapho sto Prodromi tes Thesprotias’ Athens Annals of Archaeology 13 (1980) 10-12); Everson, Warfare, 187-189).
141 Alexander’s wounds: Arr. Anab. 6.10.1; Curt. 9.5.9; Plut. Alex. 63; Plut. Mor. 341c, 344c, 345a; Demetrius’ armour: Dido. Sic. 19.81.4; 20.52.1
142 Plut. Eum. 8
143 M. Andronikos, ‘Vergina: The Royal Graves in the Great Tumulus’ Athens Annals of Archaeology 10 (1977) 26-27; Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos, Philip of Macedon, 225, pl.127; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 58
144 Everson (Warfare, 192) suggests that this armour may have even been able to withstand impacts from bolts fired from catapults as per Plutarch (Dem. 21).
145 Everson, Warfare, 192-193
146 There is little reason to doubt that, should a noble wish it, he could have worn a linothorax instead of a metal breastplate unless it is assumed that the wearing of a muscled cuirass was a compulsory distinguishing badge of rank. However, it seems unlikely that a choice of what armour to wear was available to the lower ranks who, being poorer, would have been restricted to their issued kit. If certain officers were able to wear a metal cuirass as a mark of rank and/or distinction, there is no reference anywhere to what rank (if any) and above this choice was reserved for.
147 The hypaspists, armed as hoplites, would have most likely also worn the classical muscled cuirass. However, the hypaspists were not part of the pike-phalanx.
148 Xen. Eq. 12.1
149 E. Jarva, Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour (Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 3), (Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys, Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis, Rovaniemi, 1995) 20
150 Diod. Sic. 14.41.4-5
151 Ducrey (Warfare in Ancient Greece (Schocken Books, New York, 1986) 54) suggests that one of the roles of the tunic was to prevent chafing. Pausanias (5.5.2) states that Byssos (βυσσoς) grew exclusively in Elis. Jones and Ormerod translate the word Byssos in this passage as meaning ‘fine flax’ (see their translation for the Loeb Classical Library, 1966). Levi translates the same passage as ‘fine linen’ (which is made from flax) but suggests in a footnote that what Pausanias may be describing is actually cotton (see his translation for Penguin Books, 1971 – page 206 n.32). Wild flax/linen (Linum bienne) was quite common in early Europe and Pausanias may be distinguishing the difference between this plant and cultivated linen/flax (Linum usitatissium). Edmonds translates Theocritus’ use of Byssos (2.73) to mean ‘silk’. Jones similarly states that Strabo (15.1.20) is referring to silk in his use of the term Byssos in his translation. Conybeare says that Philostratus (VA 2.20) is referring to cotton. Wright translates Empedocles’ use of Byssos (93) as simply ‘linen’. The word linon (λίvov) is used by many other ancient authors to describe articles of clothing and is usually also translated as ‘linen’; see: Aesch. Supp. 121, 132; Ar. Ran. 1347; AP 6.231; Hom. Il. 9.661; Philostr. VA 2.20. Regardless of what plant the word Byssos is actually referring to, it is clear that the Greeks had access to at least one cultivatable plant (and possibly more) which would produce fibres which could be spun into cloth for the production of clothing.
152 This was experienced when wearing the replica muscled cuirass that was used in the research on the warfare of the Classical Age discussed in Matthew, A Storm of Spears. During the testing undertaken for that project a bib of sheepskin was worn to pad the shoulders.
153 Tomb paintings show Hellenistic phalangites wearing both tunics and cloaks in a variety of colours. Plutarch (Aem. 18), on the other hand, states that the Macedonians at Pydna were wearing red tunics. This may be a reference to a type of uniform for the Macedonian military. Conversely, Heckel and Jones (Macedonian Warrior, 16) state that uniformity of equipment, other than for the Romans, is a relatively modern concept. However, if the phalangite carried a sarissa of a standardized length, carried a shield that was not only of a similar size right across the Hellenistic period but may have also been indicative of his unit, then this would suggest the basic elements of a Macedonian uniform regardless of whether a tunic of the same colour was worn or not. If a standard tunic was worn, then this would have added to the sense of a uniform. Standardisation of equipment added to esprit de corps and aided unit bonding – things that are very beneficial to a professional army. Plutarch (Eum. 8) also says that one of the special awards that could be handed out by Macedonian royalty was the distribution of purple cloaks and caps to distinguished soldiers. This suggests that these awards were of a standard colour as well.
154 Everson, Warfare, p.142
155 Some vase illustrations of hoplites from the Classical period show them wearing tunics with a cross-hatch pattern on them. Some have interpreted this as a depiction of a quilted tunic. See: Bardunias, ‘Linothorax Debate’, 52-53; Warry (Warfare, 67) has the Iphicratean peltast wearing padded armour as well.
156 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.10
157 SEG 40.524; Aen. Tact. 29.4
158 Everson, Warfare, 195
159 See: P. Jaeckel, ‘Pergamenische Waffenreliefs’ Jarbuch Waffen und Kostumkunde (Dt. Kunstverl, Munich, 1965) fig. 40
160 Plut. Aem. 34
161 Everson (Warfare, 195) suggests that these men are dismounted cavalry.
162 For example see: R. Post, ‘Alexandria’s Colourful Tombstones – Ptolemaic Soldiers Reconstructed’ AncWar 1.1 (2007) 38-43
163 It must also be considered that it gets quite cold in northern Greece and Macedonia during the winter. It seems unlikely that the people of these regions would have walked around in open-toed sandals or barefoot at times when the region could be under a metre or more of snow. Plutarch (Mor. 340e) describes how, during his campaign, Alexander the Great ‘dug through nations buried in deep snow’. Undoubtedly things like socks, cloaks and tunics were a common part of the everyday apparel for the people of these areas and it seems unlikely that such articles of clothing were not used by the Macedonian military as well. For a brief discussion of the regularity of the Macedonian boot see: Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, ‘Macedonian Costume’, 145
164 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 16; see also: Connolly, Greece and Rome, 80; Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 83-84
165 Everson, Warfare, 195
166 Plut. Alex. 16
167 N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Battle of the Granicus River’ JHS 100 (1980) 78, 80
168 Nepos, Iphicrates, 1.3-4; Diod. Sic. 15.44.1-4
169 See: Everson, Warfare, 125-126, 163-164
170 Everson, Warfare, 177; Choremis, ‘Metallimos Oplismos’, 15-16
171 Snodgrass, Arms & Armour, 119; interestingly, Snodgrass also notes the depiction of the hacking macharia on the Lion Hunt mosaic from Pella but does not seem to associate this with an infantry weapon.
172 Connolly, Greece and Rome, 77
173 Everson, Warfare, 177
174 Plut. Mor. 191e, 216c, 217e; Plut. Dion 58; Plut. Lyc. 19; in typical Laconic fashion, the Spartans apparently rebutted any disparaging comment about the length of their swords by stating that, while their swords were short, they still got close enough to the enemy to use them.
175 Sheppard, Alexander the Great at War, 82
176 SEG 40.524
177 Hatzopoulos and Juhel ‘Four Hellenic Funerary Stelae’, 425-428
178 Plut. Aem. 20
179 Plut. Mor. 344d
180 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 17
181 W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge University Press, 1930) 12
182 Plut. Aem. 20
183 Anderson, ‘Shields of Eight Palms’’, 2
184 This was the basis for the adoption by the Romans of the straight-edged gladius which, according to writers like Vegetius (Mil. 1.12), the Roman legionaries were taught to thrust with rather than swing in a slashing motion. Polybius (18.30), on the other hand, says that the Romans used their swords for both cutting and thrusting which, he says, required more room and a greater interval between each man.
185 Heckel and Jones, Macedonian Warrior, 17
186 Polyb. 6.23
187 Gabriel (Philip II, 64), one of the few scholars who does provide an estimated weight for the phalangite panoply, gives a total of 18kg. This is only slightly less than the figure given above for the equipment carried by the Iphicratean peltast or a phalangite in the age of Alexander the Great (see following).
188 Not only would the weight of a longer shaft have to be considered, but the longer pikes would have also required a heavier butt in order to offset the added weight of the longer shaft so as to provide the weapon with the correct point of balance.
189 Ael. Tact. Tact. 2
190 English, Army of Alexander, 31
191 Diod. Sic. 19.84.7
192 Polyb. 18.1
193 Polyaenus, Strat. 4.2.10
194 Front. Strat. 4.1.6
195 D.W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978) 18
196 Diod. Sic. 19.96.4
197 Diod. Sic. 20.73.3; the large amount of these personally carried rations was most likely due to the scarcity of food and water to be found in the arid Sinai Peninsula.
198 Plut. Eum. 9