The Myth of the \'Middle Class\' Hoplite

[PMBardunias]

...whilst not disputing the common sense of this, I still say; show me one shred of evidence for Hoplites going into battle without a helmet....

Show me an image of a 7th rank hoplite and I will show you the evidence :wink:

I am being obtuse for a reason (this time). I don't doubt for a moment the utility of a helmet, nor that shield and helm were the general minimum that a hoplite would wear, but I don't think that a helmet was the minimum requirement to be a hoplite. Afterall, we are specifically told the minimum requirement to be called a hoplite in one of the most misquoted passages in Greek history: " a peltast is called a peltast because of his pelta, a hoplite is called a hoplite because of his aspis." Notive he is not an aspis-bearer, but a Hoplite. To Diodorus' source, just having an aspis trumped the rest of the pan(h)oply, since bearing an aspis alone makes one a hoplite. There are many other features for which hoplites and peltasts differed, but helmet and even spear don't make the list- perhaps because it was known in the past the hoplites threw javelins and metal helmets were not always worn.

This is probably also why there is confusion over the term hoplon and its application to shields- the aspis became synonomous with the "tools of war" for a hoplite. By definition the de minimus requirement.