ON THE LENGTH OF THE MACEDONIAN SARISSA OR PIKE. The statements here given about the length of the sarissa carried by the phalangite, are taken from Polybius, whose description is on all points both clear and consistent with itself. “The sarissa (he says) is sixteen cubits long, according to the original theory; and fourteen cubits as adapted to actual practice”—τὸ δὲ τῶν σαρισσῶν μέγεθός ἐστι, κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν, ἑκκαίδεκα πηχῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἁρμογὴν τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, δεκατεσσάρων. Τούτων δὲ τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀφαιρεῖ τὸ μεταξὺ ταῖν χεροῖν διάστημα, καὶ τὸ κατόπιν σήκωμα τῆς προβολῆς (xviii. 12). The difference here indicated by Polybius between the length in theory, and that in practice, may probably be understood to mean, that the phalangites, when in exercise, used pikes of the greater length; when on service, of the smaller: just as the Roman soldiers were trained in their exercises to use arms heavier than they employed against an enemy. Of the later tactic writers, Leo (Tact. vi. 39) and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, repeat the double measurement of the sarissa as given by Polybius. Arrian (Tact. c. 12) and Polyænus (ii. 29, 2) state its length at sixteen cubits—Ælian (Tact. c. 14) gives fourteen cubits. All these authors follow either Polybius, or some other authority concurrent with him. None of them contradict him, though none state the case so clearly as he does. Messrs. Rüstow and Köchly (Gesch. des Griech. Kriegswesens, p. 238), authors of the best work that I know respecting ancient military matters, reject the authority of Polybius as it here stands. They maintain that the passage must be corrupt, and that Polybius must have meant to say that the sarissa was sixteen _feet_ in length—not sixteen _cubits_. I cannot subscribe to their opinion, nor do I think that their criticism on Polybius is a just one. First, they reason as if Polybius had said that the sarissa of actual service was _sixteen_ cubits long. Computing the weight of such a weapon from the thickness required in the shaft, they pronounce that it would be unmanageable. But Polybius gives the actual length as only _fourteen_ cubits: a very material difference. If we accept the hypothesis of these authors—that corruption of the text has made us read _cubits_ where we ought to have read _feet_,—it will follow that the length of the sarissa, as given by Polybius, would be _fourteen feet_, not _sixteen feet_. Now this length is not sufficient to justify various passages in which its prodigious length is set forth.