Bret Devereaux

So I keep coming back to the fact that the one thing we know about the sarisa is that it worked and presumably worked as described. 30/31

Finally, spelling note: you may see sarisa and also sarissa. Which is correct? Good news - even the Greeks didn't know and our sources spell it both ways. So it's up to you! I use sarisa because twitter is parsimonious with characters. 31/end (but see bibliography)

Bibliography time: the go to summary of the sources on the sarisa is Mixter, "The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great" Ancient World 23 (1992): 21-29.

The best thing to read for reconstructing one is P. Connolly, "Experiments with the Sarissa" Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000): 102-112. There is a metric TON of other articles, but Connolly discusses them, so read him first.

On the possible non-existence of a cavalry sarisa, note N. Sekunda, "The Sarissa" Acta Universitatis Lodziensis 23 (2001): 13-41. Sekunda is also probably right that Connolly has the wrong wood and it should be ash, not cornel wood used.

There's a lot, a LOT more on the sarisa, but that's what you should actually read. At some point I hope to put together a comprehensive looks at Mediterranean arms and armor in the third and second centuries BCE, but that project is as yet still years away. Until then, cheers!

Oh, as an addendum, I should add that our sources seem pretty clear that there was some zone for variability with sarisa length. Probably not a lot, but some wiggle room. Also, the difference between Theophrastus and Polybius is often taken to indicate that these weapons...

...got a little longer over time, as the extra length was valuable in the post-Alexander landscape where the sarisa-phalanx was mostly fighting *other* sarisa-phalanxes. That's a tempting theory and could be right - but note how thin the evidence it is perched on it.