That sarissa looks too long, gotto be more than 5,5 meters. with a shorter sturdier pike, and in two pieces as it should be with a bronze joint, i doubt it would bend nearly that much.
Vassilis Tsamouridis The Sarissa didn't start at 6 meters, When Phillip II first introduced them( Probably inspired by Iphicrates Reforms who did something similiar with the hoplites, lightening their armour, smaller shield and a longer Spear 3,6meter to compensate, the idea was to make them faster and capable of fighting both Peltast and hoplite's, Phillips II Phalangites we're first very light and ment for the same purpose, to fight light troops and heavy as the situation called for, but by the time of the Battle of Chaeronea they had become very heavy and many of them more heavily armored than the Greek hoplites although the shield was still smaller) , they may have been as short as 4,5 meters, but later with a bronze joint in the middle it got extendet and probably 5 - 5,5m long at the time of Alexander the Great. Now after his death and the time of the Successors, when pike met pike in battle, they started to experiement with longer Pikes from 6 to over 7 meters, but they were to unwieldy, so 6,4 meters became the norm by the end of that century.
Vassilis Tsamouridis No it wasn't deadliestblogpage.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/armies-of-the-macedonian-successor-states-the-seleucids/ if you scroll down you will see: The original phalanx of Philip and Alexander fought in a sixteen-rank deep formation; armed with a two-handed, 18 foot long pike called a sarissa. (18 foot equals 548,64cm or 5,48meter) Originally made of cornel wood (according to Theophrastus; author Nicholas Sekunda makes a strong though not entirely convincing argument for Ash wood) and consisting of two equal pieces fitted together and joined by an iron tubular sleeve 61/2″ long. But if you wanna take secondary school kids word for it, be my guest! lol right back at you!
Just curious, do you consider Alexander to be Greek or just Macedonian with Greek influence? Because in his time it seems he was never considered a "first class" Greek, but a barbarian from norrh.
The common macedonian was proud to be different from greeks. Everything from lenguage to fashion, to behaviors really. Now the nobility, they loved the greeks. They invited greeks to court and hellenized themselves as much as possible, and Alexander was no exceltion, which is demonstrated by his love of epic poems
The Macedonians (Makedonians/Μακεδόνες) are pure Greeks. They are Dorians and were called Makednoi (Μακεδνοί) and means "tall" .In the Doric dialects where the Attic Greek had the letter Η/η , they put Α/α. Thus, we have Σπάρτα (Sparta) but Σπάρτη( Sparte) in Attic Greek or in this case Μάκος (Makos which leads to Makedon) and Μήκος (Mekos=length) in Attic Greek. .Both Herodotus and Thycidides give us detailed information about the Macedonians.. In the region they settled there were already Ionian Greeks and Aeolians Greeks living. The nobility had origins from Argos (Argead Dynasty) , who were also Dorians. The Macedonian language was a Greek dialect and it soon got influenced by the Attic Greek, eventually forming the Koine Greek after Alexander's conquest. (At least) the nobility had been already following the Attic way of living. Every archeological founding (structures, buildings, armor,weapons,ancient texts etc) confirmed the Greekness not only of Alexander (Αλέξανδρος: ἀλέξω(alexo) (προστατεύω=protect) + ἀνήρ(aner)(άνδρας=man,male), in genitive ανδρ-ός( andros), but of the Macedonian people in general.
Macedonians were Dorians a wild Greek tribe native to north Greece they were speaking a Greek language with a heavy accent but they wright in Greek they left dozen of monuments tombs tembles theaters all of them are carved with Greek enscriptions so they were Greeks
That's what she said. But in all seriousness, how could that be used without snapping? I know they used it successfully, but it just seems very unwieldy.
how would they be able to thrust this and pierce an enemy effectively? if it was doable, didn't pulling it back out of the enemy (especially an armored enemy) make it a huge challenge that would compromise the whole formation? i cannot see how they would be able to inflict much damage with the particular reconstruction of this weapon in this video. perhaps back in the day, they had a method of making it lighter and more straight.
They would move in a phalanx formation, as I'm sure you know. What this does is basically create a "wall" of spear tips and shields. So if you stuck an enemy, just pull him close and another soldier will run him through. Also the bend in the sarissa (probably way too much in this demonstration - no middle connection piece) would allow the wielder of it some flexibility to maneuver it. Many think it would snap on that bend as soon as it connects with hard armor. But say you put the tip of that spear on the center of your linothorax. How hard do you think you could push in an attempt to break the spear before it impales you, or more likely, just glides off and sticks the next guy?
@@somethingsomethingusername802 i'm assuming they also had a few swordsmen within the lineup to finish off those who get close. do you know if that was a thing or not?
@@kaantaskintuna3994 I'm not sure if a sword would be used in conjunction with the sarissa. Like say one soldier thrusts with the sarissa, and another comes in with the sword. It could very well have happened, but from what we know about phalanx formations and how they were trained, this is *perhaps* a remote possibility if plausible at all. I could see it happening if a soldiers sarissa broke, for instance. But the key thinking on the battlefield was "the structure of the phalanx shouldn't be compromised for *any* reason". I do know that the majority of soldiers, along with carrying their sarissas, would also carry a sword on their hip in case of an attack from the flanks, or if they clashed with a tight infantry formation (something they would try to avoid at all costs). So I guess I don't really know lol.
@@somethingsomethingusername802 Still though, think of the zweihander sword used by landsknechte to slash through pike formations. Im not going to just stand there and let you push that spear into me, im going to use my shield and whatever weapon I have to go in between. Its really hard to grasp how the phalanx was as successful as they were, and I read ‘An Invincible Beast’ (great book by the way), and am still confused. Look at how he is straining when he is walking with that thing! The only thing I can think of is a Rugby scrum. Two large masses of men pushing against each-other (nothing like in the movies), so that you are essentially being pushed against this wall of spears from behind as well. It isnt so much spears being thrust into you, as the phalangites had very limited thrusting ability with those massive things.
@@kaantaskintuna3994 The hypaspists (hypaspistai) were what you're thinking about. Trusted men, they were armed with larger shields (the phalangites would have much small shields), shorter spears, and swords. They were positioned at the flanks of the sarissa formation to protect it, and finish off any stranglers of the enemy. But trust me, infantrymen of the Persian empire weren't the best troops. Poorly trained and even worse equipped, their job was to merely hold a position through strength in numbers for the elite Persian cavalry to engage the enemy. I don't think they would be trying to blitz through a wall of pointy things that can hurt you,their morale was poor and they regularly broke and fleed when things turn a bad turn. Additionally, if a rather cheeky soldier tried to wield his way around the first line of sarissas, 50cm behind them was a second one. And a third, and a fourth, and a fifth...
First, Congrats to these guys for they give us the oportunity to see such things! The bending and the heavy weight seems to be an issue, despite that the guy operates it the right way (holiding it differently in order to balance the wheapon may wound his companions). As I see it now, I assume that sarissa was probably thicker and made from a lighter wood.
It's meant to bend, as the initial sarissas would simply be snapped/cut by swordsmen during initial trials. took a long time before the right wood was found which was flexible yet sturdy.
@@coolL9457 That isn't true, they used wood native to Macedonia that had been used for bows and spears for centuries. They did not have to "find the right wood" they used the spear making woods native to their area.
Engineers were also responsible to supply the peltasts with arrows, javellins and many many more millitary equipment and also carry the wounded ... if you watch carefully Alexander the Great by Oliver Stone you will see em at the battle of Gaugamela at the rear of the Phalanxes with carriages.
Alexanders men used to walk 30-50km‘s with their sarissas before starting a battle and resting along with their shields and they still won their wars delivering crushing defeats
The ancient spear Sarissa was 2 separate parts of a spear connected to each other with a screw like wood in the middle. The 1st part was the front one with the tip of the Spear and the 2nd one was the bottom one with the needle look-a-like end called Savrotiras.. those days Sarrisas didnt bend that much since the whole construction wanst one spear but 2 parts.
The notion of the sarissa being constructed from two parts is dubious at best. The idea comes from the find of a socket from a tomb in Vergina in 1970. Approximately 17cm long and 3cm in diameter tapering towards the middle, it lacks any pin holes or threading. However, being found alongside a sauroter, and two spear heads, one large, one smaller, it was interpreted as being part of a sarissa with it acting as a hypothetical joint piece. This interpretation hasn't stood up to actual reconstructions with the size and construction of the socket have to be significantly altered to be practical, especially with the over large point that was interpreted as being a sarissa head. As it is, it stands completely at odds with comptemporary literature and art, including that on the tomb which doesn't depict any such socket despite depicting a pezhetairoi with a sarissa. Similarly, despite pikes becoming the main battlefield weapon in late medieval and early modern europe, no such parallel is found despite the highly experimental nature of warfare of the time, the similar issues that would benefit from a two part pike and especially the common practice of shortening pikes for assaulting breeches; that an era that saw so many lines of experimental weaponry could fail to develop a goddamned tube, with or without screw threads or pins, is starkly telling in contrast. As it is, it is more than likely another hypothetical reconstruction like with the Corbridge segmentata, valsgaarde greaves or dorchester belt, where the original reconstruction misses the mark wildly and latter works turns it into something more practical and realistic.
@@docholiday7975 Regarding the assumption that the larger metal spike is the spear head of that pike. I find that odd as this is completely at odds with the leaver principle that you would need to utilise, to be able to use the weapon. The point is to maintain a large distance between the formation and the people you are fighting with the pike. So you need the pivot hand to be nearer the butt spike then the centre. As such the butt spike must be much heavier and thus the larger metal item. Granted Archamedies lived later than Philip II and Alexander III but the principle is obvious without the intelectual writing it down and pointing out his increasing scale hyphothosis.
@@gm2407 It is to anchor the pike just as in later medieval development. The mass of men pressing forward is stopped by dense wood, metal, and the ground. Moving your hand backwards towards the ground is only going to make it harder to keep the point up under load.
A single man operating this weapon is not very impressive, it looks cumbersome, slow and needlessly long. Now imagine a Macedonian phalanx, 100 men wide, 7 rows thick, with first 4 rows' sarissae pointing forward towards your people, armed with short spears. Try to battle them.
I do understand that they have a counter-weight but that shaft does look a little thin. Or maybe it's not made out of the correct wood. Historically speaking, sarissa's and most other spears used in ancient Greece were made from the wood of an ash tree.
@@OldschoolHIT360 Ash spears are in Greek mythology, the spear of Peleus, Achilles ash spear. Ash is absolutely native to Macedonia and Greece and is very well known as a spear material. Cornel wood likely did not grow as long as was much heavier without much greater impact performance, cornel being used for shorter spears and cavalry pikes is very likely while ash was used for long sarrisa. These were not two part spears as some speculate, ash is almost certain to be what Alexanders sarrisaas we're made of like other "demigods" of proximal cultures.
VollyTyrannis: There is no way you would deal 400 joules with a thrust with such pike.. thrusting with hasta spear 1.4kg heavy, would only give you about 45-50 joules (8m/s), and thrusting Sarissa would be much more problematic (as you can see in this video), so you will not achieve such thrust speed with it.. and if we assume that you could do about half of it - 4m/s with 5kg heavy sarissa, inpact energy would be just 40 joules... not 400... simple law of physics..
+Sam “MrPercie” Percy i think it could mean that they braced the sarissa in armpit to fix it, then used the movement momentum to maximum.. cant imagine how they could run with it.. just look how hard it is to just walk forward with it..
The speed of dedicated, two-handed spear thrusts can reach anywhere around ~20-60 m/s. With a pike or Sarrissa, I Imagine that the speed would be somewhere around the 20 m/s mark, which is on the lower-end.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 from the Bible ❤
Was there an advantage in being tall when wielding a 6 metre sarissa? Like a taller pier being better with a longer suspension bridge? Thankyou so much for your wonderful work.
The old Macedonians were welled trained to operate that weapon.
That sarissa looks too long, gotto be more than 5,5 meters. with a shorter sturdier pike, and in two pieces as it should be with a bronze joint, i doubt it would bend nearly that much.
JanXXVI it was 6 meters long...
Vassilis Tsamouridis The Sarissa didn't start at 6 meters, When Phillip II first introduced them( Probably inspired by Iphicrates Reforms who did something similiar with the hoplites, lightening their armour, smaller shield and a longer Spear 3,6meter to compensate, the idea was to make them faster and capable of fighting both Peltast and hoplite's, Phillips II Phalangites we're first very light and ment for the same purpose, to fight light troops and heavy as the situation called for, but by the time of the Battle of Chaeronea they had become very heavy and many of them more heavily armored than the Greek hoplites although the shield was still smaller) , they may have been as short as 4,5 meters, but later with a bronze joint in the middle it got extendet and probably 5 - 5,5m long at the time of Alexander the Great. Now after his death and the time of the Successors, when pike met pike in battle, they started to experiement with longer Pikes from 6 to over 7 meters, but they were to unwieldy, so 6,4 meters became the norm by the end of that century.
i told you that in the epoch of Alexander the Great it was 6 meters long...kids in secondary school know that lol
Vassilis Tsamouridis No it wasn't deadliestblogpage.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/armies-of-the-macedonian-successor-states-the-seleucids/ if you scroll down you will see: The original phalanx of Philip and Alexander fought in a sixteen-rank deep formation; armed with a two-handed, 18 foot long pike called a sarissa. (18 foot equals 548,64cm or 5,48meter) Originally made of cornel wood (according to Theophrastus; author Nicholas Sekunda makes a strong though not entirely convincing argument for Ash wood) and consisting of two equal pieces fitted together and joined by an iron tubular sleeve 61/2″ long. But if you wanna take secondary school kids word for it, be my guest! lol right back at you!
i didn't wait the internet teach me histrory i rely on books so idc whatever u say lol and there is not a huge difference with 5.5 or 6 meters lol
Just curious, do you consider Alexander to be Greek or just Macedonian with Greek influence? Because in his time it seems he was never considered a "first class" Greek, but a barbarian from norrh.
The common macedonian was proud to be different from greeks. Everything from lenguage to fashion, to behaviors really. Now the nobility, they loved the greeks. They invited greeks to court and hellenized themselves as much as possible, and Alexander was no exceltion, which is demonstrated by his love of epic poems
bush did 911
The Macedonians (Makedonians/Μακεδόνες) are pure Greeks. They are Dorians and were called Makednoi (Μακεδνοί) and means "tall" .In the Doric dialects where the Attic Greek had the letter Η/η , they put Α/α. Thus, we have Σπάρτα (Sparta) but Σπάρτη( Sparte) in Attic Greek or in this case Μάκος (Makos which leads to Makedon) and Μήκος (Mekos=length) in Attic Greek. .Both Herodotus and Thycidides give us detailed information about the Macedonians.. In the region they settled there were already Ionian Greeks and Aeolians Greeks living. The nobility had origins from Argos (Argead Dynasty) , who were also Dorians. The Macedonian language was a Greek dialect and it soon got influenced by the Attic Greek, eventually forming the Koine Greek after Alexander's conquest. (At least) the nobility had been already following the Attic way of living. Every archeological founding (structures, buildings, armor,weapons,ancient texts etc) confirmed the Greekness not only of Alexander (Αλέξανδρος: ἀλέξω(alexo) (προστατεύω=protect) + ἀνήρ(aner)(άνδρας=man,male), in genitive ανδρ-ός( andros), but of the Macedonian people in general.
They were Dorian hill people, so basically...Greek.
Macedonians were Dorians a wild Greek tribe native to north Greece they were speaking a Greek language with a heavy accent but they wright in Greek they left dozen of monuments tombs tembles theaters all of them are carved with Greek enscriptions so they were Greeks
Nah, I think it has more to do with the shaft not being thick enough.
It has to do, that the sarissa was a 2 part pike.
That's what she said. But in all seriousness, how could that be used without snapping? I know they used it successfully, but it just seems very unwieldy.
@@blurrypotato4573 its hard to take them seriously with limp poles.... idk why...
@@grevzonas3374 It was not two part.
Alexander’s men’s spears would have been 16-18 ft this looks to be 20ft plus
It eventually reached those lenghts
@@wankawanka3053 Possibly, or the unit of measurement changed during a later description from second hand account which is most likely.
how would they be able to thrust this and pierce an enemy effectively? if it was doable, didn't pulling it back out of the enemy (especially an armored enemy) make it a huge challenge that would compromise the whole formation? i cannot see how they would be able to inflict much damage with the particular reconstruction of this weapon in this video. perhaps back in the day, they had a method of making it lighter and more straight.
They would move in a phalanx formation, as I'm sure you know. What this does is basically create a "wall" of spear tips and shields. So if you stuck an enemy, just pull him close and another soldier will run him through.
Also the bend in the sarissa (probably way too much in this demonstration - no middle connection piece) would allow the wielder of it some flexibility to maneuver it. Many think it would snap on that bend as soon as it connects with hard armor.
But say you put the tip of that spear on the center of your linothorax. How hard do you think you could push in an attempt to break the spear before it impales you, or more likely, just glides off and sticks the next guy?
@@somethingsomethingusername802 i'm assuming they also had a few swordsmen within the lineup to finish off those who get close. do you know if that was a thing or not?
@@kaantaskintuna3994 I'm not sure if a sword would be used in conjunction with the sarissa. Like say one soldier thrusts with the sarissa, and another comes in with the sword.
It could very well have happened, but from what we know about phalanx formations and how they were trained, this is *perhaps* a remote possibility if plausible at all. I could see it happening if a soldiers sarissa broke, for instance.
But the key thinking on the battlefield was "the structure of the phalanx shouldn't be compromised for *any* reason".
I do know that the majority of soldiers, along with carrying their sarissas, would also carry a sword on their hip in case of an attack from the flanks, or if they clashed with a tight infantry formation (something they would try to avoid at all costs).
So I guess I don't really know lol.
@@somethingsomethingusername802 Still though, think of the zweihander sword used by landsknechte to slash through pike formations. Im not going to just stand there and let you push that spear into me, im going to use my shield and whatever weapon I have to go in between. Its really hard to grasp how the phalanx was as successful as they were, and I read ‘An Invincible Beast’ (great book by the way), and am still confused. Look at how he is straining when he is walking with that thing!
The only thing I can think of is a Rugby scrum. Two large masses of men pushing against each-other (nothing like in the movies), so that you are essentially being pushed against this wall of spears from behind as well. It isnt so much spears being thrust into you, as the phalangites had very limited thrusting ability with those massive things.
@@kaantaskintuna3994 The hypaspists (hypaspistai) were what you're thinking about. Trusted men, they were armed with larger shields (the phalangites would have much small shields), shorter spears, and swords. They were positioned at the flanks of the sarissa formation to protect it, and finish off any stranglers of the enemy. But trust me, infantrymen of the Persian empire weren't the best troops. Poorly trained and even worse equipped, their job was to merely hold a position through strength in numbers for the elite Persian cavalry to engage the enemy. I don't think they would be trying to blitz through a wall of pointy things that can hurt you,their morale was poor and they regularly broke and fleed when things turn a bad turn.
Additionally, if a rather cheeky soldier tried to wield his way around the first line of sarissas, 50cm behind them was a second one. And a third, and a fourth, and a fifth...
First, Congrats to these guys for they give us the oportunity to see such things!
The bending and the heavy weight seems to be an issue, despite that the guy operates it the right way (holiding it differently in order to balance the wheapon may wound his companions). As I see it now, I assume that sarissa was probably thicker and made from a lighter wood.
It's meant to bend, as the initial sarissas would simply be snapped/cut by swordsmen during initial trials. took a long time before the right wood was found which was flexible yet sturdy.
@@coolL9457 That isn't true, they used wood native to Macedonia that had been used for bows and spears for centuries. They did not have to "find the right wood" they used the spear making woods native to their area.
Engineers were also responsible to supply the peltasts with arrows, javellins and many many more millitary equipment and also carry the wounded ... if you watch carefully Alexander the Great by Oliver Stone you will see em at the battle of Gaugamela at the rear of the Phalanxes with carriages.
Alexanders men used to walk 30-50km‘s with their sarissas before starting a battle and resting along with their shields and they still won their wars delivering crushing defeats
Well the sarissa was made of 2 parts in order to make the march easier
@@crashoveryu Yeah but even than, carrying two ~9 foot poles, your shield, sword, armor, etc....fuck that lol
@@somethingsomethingusername802 pretty sure modern infantry carries more weight, arguably for less time and distance however...
@@crashoveryuNo it was not.
@@BeKindToBirds yes it was.
How can they use this thing without breaking? It seems “floppy”. I wonder if making it 2 parts made it more rigid.
the real one was much lighter, maybe 1/3 of the weight we see on this video.
I really, really hope the real sarrisas from the past were NOT this wobbly and bent, because this is terrible. Seriously.
The ancient spear Sarissa was 2 separate parts of a spear connected to each other with a screw like wood in the middle. The 1st part was the front one with the tip of the Spear and the 2nd one was the bottom one with the needle look-a-like end called Savrotiras.. those days Sarrisas didnt bend that much since the whole construction wanst one spear but 2 parts.
The notion of the sarissa being constructed from two parts is dubious at best.
The idea comes from the find of a socket from a tomb in Vergina in 1970. Approximately 17cm long and 3cm in diameter tapering towards the middle, it lacks any pin holes or threading. However, being found alongside a sauroter, and two spear heads, one large, one smaller, it was interpreted as being part of a sarissa with it acting as a hypothetical joint piece. This interpretation hasn't stood up to actual reconstructions with the size and construction of the socket have to be significantly altered to be practical, especially with the over large point that was interpreted as being a sarissa head.
As it is, it stands completely at odds with comptemporary literature and art, including that on the tomb which doesn't depict any such socket despite depicting a pezhetairoi with a sarissa. Similarly, despite pikes becoming the main battlefield weapon in late medieval and early modern europe, no such parallel is found despite the highly experimental nature of warfare of the time, the similar issues that would benefit from a two part pike and especially the common practice of shortening pikes for assaulting breeches; that an era that saw so many lines of experimental weaponry could fail to develop a goddamned tube, with or without screw threads or pins, is starkly telling in contrast.
As it is, it is more than likely another hypothetical reconstruction like with the Corbridge segmentata, valsgaarde greaves or dorchester belt, where the original reconstruction misses the mark wildly and latter works turns it into something more practical and realistic.
@@docholiday7975 Regarding the assumption that the larger metal spike is the spear head of that pike. I find that odd as this is completely at odds with the leaver principle that you would need to utilise, to be able to use the weapon. The point is to maintain a large distance between the formation and the people you are fighting with the pike. So you need the pivot hand to be nearer the butt spike then the centre. As such the butt spike must be much heavier and thus the larger metal item. Granted Archamedies lived later than Philip II and Alexander III but the principle is obvious without the intelectual writing it down and pointing out his increasing scale hyphothosis.
Many thanks for this explanation, I was surprised by this
@@gm2407 It is to anchor the pike just as in later medieval development. The mass of men pressing forward is stopped by dense wood, metal, and the ground. Moving your hand backwards towards the ground is only going to make it harder to keep the point up under load.
@@BeKindToBirds I wasn't saying any different. The pivot point is dictated by the weight difference at either end of the pole.
I don't know. Maybe he is over compensating for something.
Looks like a limp dick
A single man operating this weapon is not very impressive, it looks cumbersome, slow and needlessly long. Now imagine a Macedonian phalanx, 100 men wide, 7 rows thick, with first 4 rows' sarissae pointing forward towards your people, armed with short spears. Try to battle them.
I do understand that they have a counter-weight but that shaft does look a little thin. Or maybe it's not made out of the correct wood. Historically speaking, sarissa's and most other spears used in ancient Greece were made from the wood of an ash tree.
Blake Christo no ash doesn’t grow in that area, the wood would’ve been cornel
Cornel.... Even homer states that... Cornel!
@@OldschoolHIT360 Ash spears are in Greek mythology, the spear of Peleus, Achilles ash spear.
Ash is absolutely native to Macedonia and Greece and is very well known as a spear material. Cornel wood likely did not grow as long as was much heavier without much greater impact performance, cornel being used for shorter spears and cavalry pikes is very likely while ash was used for long sarrisa. These were not two part spears as some speculate, ash is almost certain to be what Alexanders sarrisaas we're made of like other "demigods" of proximal cultures.
Interesting, but does it not bend to much?
Wood that does not bend breaks
A spear with a bending shaft cannot pierce an armored opponent.
VollyTyrannis: There is no way you would deal 400 joules with a thrust with such pike.. thrusting with hasta spear 1.4kg heavy, would only give you about 45-50 joules (8m/s), and thrusting Sarissa would be much more problematic (as you can see in this video), so you will not achieve such thrust speed with it.. and if we assume that you could do about half of it - 4m/s with 5kg heavy sarissa, inpact energy would be just 40 joules... not 400...
simple law of physics..
+Sam “MrPercie” Percy i think it could mean that they braced the sarissa in armpit to fix it, then used the movement momentum to maximum.. cant imagine how they could run with it.. just look how hard it is to just walk forward with it..
The speed of dedicated, two-handed spear thrusts can reach anywhere around ~20-60 m/s. With a pike or Sarrissa, I Imagine that the speed would be somewhere around the 20 m/s mark, which is on the lower-end.
The point of sarissa is to keep enemy spear further away
Irrelevant to how a phalanx works.
You arent accounting for the weight of the man behind it.... He isnt throwing the thing he is holding it.
Duh.
maybe a two or three pieces sarissae wouldnt bend that much? how unyielding do you think it actually was thrusting with that?
make the Sarisa 1/3 lighter and then we get closer to the real ones...
impressive videos my friend.keep up the good work
How did you put this thing in your car?
Diameter of the wood?
Somebody needs to put a full phalanx. It's hard to believe it worked.
if it didnt work then how did alexander conquer the east..
@@gmeme9252 He's not saying it didn't work tho lol
For real. Most reenactments we see are horrible because the people have been conditioned the wrong way.
Она не должна так гнуться.
long spear was it efficient? much wingspan ...
how do the soldier defends himself of arrows enemies ???
It's called as "pike"(sarissa in Greek).And they had small shields,around 50 cm diameter
@@thletrelas3817 sarissa in Macedonian..its Macedonian weapon afterall
That's a bendy boi
How thick is the shaft? (lol)
Also, how long can he hold it down for?
xdddddwsdfcdsfsadfghcgfjkgjliufdrg
What wood was this made with?
Что то тут не так!?!🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
This video saved my life
Thanks a lot for that information, will review the movie again.
F*CK YOU
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 from the Bible ❤
Was there an advantage in being tall when wielding a 6 metre sarissa? Like a taller pier being better with a longer suspension bridge?
Thankyou so much for your wonderful work.