Sarissa
[6] The size of the tip is disputed; much scholarship from 1970–2000 favored a comparatively large and heavy spearhead shaped like a leaf on the basis of an archaeological find by Manolis Andronikos of such an implement in a Macedonian tomb at Vergina, 51 cm (1.67 ft) long.
[9] Ancient writers say that the sarissa was capable of piercing both shield and armor, which suggests to Sekunda the use of a small but focused spearhead rather than a broad one.
[6] Ancient authorities are unanimous in saying the sarissa was distinguished by its great length, which made it difficult for opposing soldiers to safely engage phalangites.
[8][13][14] In the scholarship based on Andronikos' discoveries and his and Markle's journal articles, it is thought that the sarissa was heavy for a spear, weighing approximately 5.5 to 6.5 kg (12 to 14 lb).
One possibility considered by some scholars is that to make such prodigiously long pikes, two separate tree branches were joined by a metal tube.
This theory rested on the identification of such a tube in Andronikos's Vergina finds as perhaps being the middle part of a sarissa, along with cornel wood being difficult to grow out to the longest lengths described.
[20] 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.
He thought that tactically, the longer (4.5 meters+) version would make for a more devastating initial charge, but that a 4.0 m (13.1 ft) spear would be easier to use in a prolonged melee.
[23][25] While Hellenistic cavalry frequently wielded spears, whether their weapon is best classed as a shorter version of the sarissa or as a xyston (Ancient Greek: ξυστόν) is disputed.
The back rows bore their pikes angled upwards in readiness, which served the additional purpose of deflecting incoming arrows.
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.
[14] Livy writes on the Roman victory at the Battle of Pydna (168 BCE) against the Antigonid Macedonian army that: Its force, while it is compact and bristling with extended spears, is irresistible; but if, by attacking them separately, you force them to turn about their spears, which, on account of their length and weight, are unwieldy, they are mingled in a confused mass; and, if any disorder arises on the flank or rear, they fall into irretrievable disorder.
(...) had [the Romans] advanced with their entire line, straight against the phalanx when in its regular order, just as happened to the Pelignians, who, in the beginning of the battle, incautiously engaged the targeteers; they would have impaled themselves on the spears, and would have been unable to withstand such a firm body.
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.
[34] 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.
[35] 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.
