sarissa

Infantry sarissa wielders in a phalanx generally also used a shield. An inscription in the Lindian Temple Chronicle records a gift of "ten peltai, ten sarisai, and ten helmets" dedicated to King Philip V of Macedon, suggesting that the Macedonians viewed the sarissa and the bronze pelta (shield) as a matched set. The bulk and size of the sarissa required soldiers to wield it with both hands, allowing them to carry only a smaller shield. The pelta was perhaps around 60 cm in size in Alexander's era, and perhaps only 45 cm by the Hellenistic era if even longer sarissas were really used then. To make it easier to carry when both hands were occupied, a neck strap may have been used to help hold the shield and cover the left shoulder. However, other scholars suggest that larger shields were used in the Macedonian phalanx, ranging from 65 to. Some light-infantry peltasts in the Antigonid army appear to have been closer to a more mobile phalanx than the Alexander-era skirmishers, and they may have used a combination of smaller shields along with smaller sarissas to improve their mobility.

• Illustration — A painting of a Macedonian cavalryman possibly wielding the cavalry version of a sarissa (~3rd century BCE; published by K. F. Kinch). The depiction shows what is either a metal spear-butt at the end, or another spear head for a double weapon. The Macedonian army of Alexander's time featured a unit of light cavalry (prodromoi) called the sarissophoroi who also wielded sarissas, albeit somewhat shorter versions. However, the term "sarissophoroi" eventually stops showing up in literature in the later Hellenistic age. Most surviving depictions of Macedonian cavalry depict it wielded under-arm, but it probably could have been wielded over-arm as well. Minor Markle thought that based on ancient depictions, the cavalry sarissa would have been about 4.5 m. He also does not think that the cavalry always equipped themselves with sarissas; for scouting missions, they probably just carried two javelins and a sword instead, reserving the sarissa for use in major battles. Peter Connolly also researched the matter. Connolly wrote that the cavalry spear was depicted as a primary weapon (rather than a Roman pilum which could be thrown once, like a javelin) and thus should be able to be used repeatedly. Connolly arranged for a modern horse rider to test out reconstructed spears of several of the possible lengths, and found it plausible that a cavalry spear as long as 4.9 m could have been used. He thought that tactically, the longer (4.5 meters+) version would make for a more devastating initial charge, but that a 4.0 m spear would be easier to use in a prolonged melee. Both Markle and Connolly write that the cavalry sarissa, unlike the infantry sarissa, was almost certainly wielded one-handed, as a full heavy two-handed impact would probably knock the sarissa-wielding rider off their own horse. While Hellenistic cavalry frequently wielded spears, whether their weapon is best classed as a shorter version of the sarissa or as a xyston is disputed. Nicholas Victor Sekunda argues that the Macedonian cavalry spear was more properly classed as a xyston. The xyston was made of cornel wood, was shorter than an infantry sarissa, and had a larger and wider spearhead than the infantry sarissa. He also notes that Ancient Macedonians may have used the term "sarissa" broadly in the sense of any spear, even if other Greeks meant specifically the Macedonian variety.

The standard Hellenistic army deployment was to have a heavy infantry phalanx in the center, cavalry on the sides capable of threatening to flank the enemy or to attack weak spots, and light infantry skirmishers such as slingers or javelineers in the front. Of these, the infantry phalanxes wielded sarissas, and the cavalry wielded somewhat shorter spears, which may or may not have qualified as a "sarissa". While marching and maneuvering, infantry sarissas were held vertically. Once the sarissas were leveled (that is, pointed horizontally forward for battle), the phalanx could advance straight forward, but turning the phalanx would be more difficult and require training and discipline. The sarissa was already so long that thrusting them forward likely didn't extend their range much, comparatively — perhaps around an additional 0.5 m. The sarissa-bearing phalanx would usually march to battle in open formation to facilitate movement. Before the charge, it would tighten its files to close formation or even compact formation (synaspismos). The tight formation of the phalanx created a "wall of pikes", and the pike was so long that there were fully five rows of them projecting in front of the front rank of men—even if an enemy got past the first row, there were still four more to stop him. The back rows bore their pikes angled upwards in readiness, which served the additional purpose of deflecting incoming arrows. The Macedonian phalanx was considered practically invulnerable from the front. Another phalanx could perhaps wear a phalanx down in a long battle from exhaustion, but this was far from guaranteed. The best way to defeat one was generally by one of a loss of morale from killing the enemy commander, breaking its formation, or outflanking it. For example, the Romans used a flanking tactic at the Battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC) to defeat the Antigonid Macedonians. A few years later, the Seleucid phalanx held up well at the Battle of Thermopylae (191 BCE); a Roman surprise flanking force caused the army to lose formation and retreat. Livy writes on the Roman victory at the Battle of Pydna (168 BCE) against the Antigonid Macedonian army that: One possible technique that could have been used with a sarissa is planting them directly in the ground if an enemy charge was thought to be imminent. However, the only source that reports this tactic is the satirist Lucian of Samosata, writing centuries after the sarissa's prominence, so if it was a real technique, it seems to have been a rare one. Phalangites would carry a backup weapon, generally a sword or dagger. If a phalanx broke formation, or if a lone soldier found himself in close combat, the sarissa was nearly useless as a weapon, and the backup weapon would be used instead.

• Illustration — 3rd century BCE art of a warrior carrying a spear from the Tomb of Judgement, Lefkadia—possibly a sarissa The adoption of the sarissa by the Macedonian infantry is usually credited to Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. Alexander used the sarissa armed phalanx in his wars across Asia, where he conquered Asia Minor, Persian Egypt, the Persian Empire's homelands in Babylonia and Persia, and the Pauravas (northwest India). The sarissa-wielding phalanxes were vital in every early battle, including the pivotal Battle of Gaugamela where the Persian king's scythe chariots were utterly destroyed by the phalanx, supported by the combined use of companion cavalry and peltasts (javelineers). During his later campaigning, Alexander gradually reduced the importance of the phalanx and the sarissa, as he modified his combined use of arms to incorporate Asian weapons and troops, not specifically trained in Macedonian battle tactics. The sarissa remained the core of Hellenistic armies of the Diadochi successor states to Alexander's empire. The word remained in use throughout the Byzantine years to sometimes describe the long spears of their own infantry. Long pikes would eventually come back into vogue due to changing circumstances in the late medieval and early modern period (~1300–1700); scholars of military history have used reports of how Swiss mercenaries, German Landsknecht, and English and Irish pikemen fought to analyze how the similar Macedonian sarissa was likely used. In his 1521 book The Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that "I conjecture that a Macedonian Phalanx was nothing else than a battalion of Swiss is today, who have all their strength and power in their pikes." Preserved English pikes from this period tend to be 5.6 to long, and there are reports of pikes as long as 6.7 m. These reports suggest that usage of such long pikes by the Macedonians was plausible and militarily viable.