What the description of Sphacteria has to tell us

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Of all the work of Thucydides, the description of the the events of Sphacteria gives perhaps the most gathered info on very interesting matters about the code of war in the classical times,the proccess followed to do certain things,the equipment carried and used by different soldiers and the way of fighting both in phalanx,in skirmish and on board.
I thought this alone deserved a thread where we can discuss Thucydides's description.
I'll start with the fact that the "piloi" were not protecting the Spartans from arrows. It has beed discussed again,but how possible is it that the word "pilos" here is refering not to the metal conical helmet,but to the felt cap worn under the helmet? How can a corinthian,or better,a chalkidean helmet protect much better than a pilos,provided the men fighting in a phalanx are covered by their shields? The shield can cover you to the eyes.

Another thing that adds to the theory that only just before contact did the hoplites close ranks, Thucydides mentions that after they got tired running around the same spot,pursuing the peltasts,they closed ranks and retreated.(the word used is "synklesantes" ξυγκλήσαντες"). I suppose the closed ranks in order to be safer in a quick rear attack by the Athenian hoplites.

There are many other things to be discussed on this topic.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

I'll start with the fact that the "piloi" were not protecting the Spartans from arrows. It has beed discussed again,but how possible is it that the word "pilos" here is refering not to the metal conical helmet,but to the felt cap worn under the helmet? How can a corinthian,or better,a chalkidean helmet protect much better than a pilos,provided the men fighting in a phalanx are covered by their shields? The shield can cover you to the eyes.

I have wondered about this. The pilos doesn't protect the neck as well as a Corinthian, but it is the face and throat that are the main areas uncovered. I wonder how much of the lack of protection is mentally percieved by the hoplites. They could cover with thier shields, but it does not change the fact that the old corinthian offers a level of mental comfort with that bronze in front of your face. Perhaps Thukydides is not just referring to the protection in this instance, but letting us in on a discussion current among the hoplites of his day as to the best helmet types. Also, they were being showered with arrows from the flanks, so protecting the face from all angles was impossible.

Another thing that adds to the theory that only just before contact did the hoplites close ranks, Thucydides mentions that after they got tired running around the same spot,pursuing the peltasts,they closed ranks and retreated.(the word used is "synklesantes" ξυγκλήσαντες"). I suppose the closed ranks in order to be safer in a quick rear attack by the Athenian hoplites.

What is the exact meaning of synklesantes? What context is the root word commonly used in?

[Kineas]

ξυγκλῄσαντες--‘closing up’. or locking their shields together': v. 71, ἡ πυκνότης τη̂ς ξυγκλῄσεως, ‘locking up closely’. With the act. aor. is to be understood ‘their shields’ or ‘their ranks’: cf. note on ch. 32, 17, ἀντιτάξωνται. CE Graves commentary on Thucydides Chap.4

συγκλείω is the root verb, and ξυγκλῄσαντες is the aorist active masculine nominative plural participle. The root verb has the sense of cooping up or enclosing, and is NOT found in the LSJ.

Yikes.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Where else is the word "pilos" refering to the bronze conical helmet and this is certain? I mean, "pilos" or "pilema" mean specificly felt or felt cap. How do we know the conical helmet was ever called pilos? Is it a speculation from Thucydides or is it mentioned by other ancient authors? Is Xenophon saying anything about bronze piloi?
Khairete
Giannis

[Kineas]

3] τό τε ἔργον** ἐνταυ̂θα χαλεπὸν τοι̂ς Λακεδαιμονίοις καθίστατο: οὔτε** [size=150:88ewzo5h]γὰρ οἱ πι̂λοι ἔστεγον τὰ τοξεύματα[/size], δοράτιά τε ἐναπεκέκλαστο βαλλομένων, εἰ̂χόν τε** οὐδὲν σφίσιν αὐτοι̂ς χρήσασθαι ἀποκεκλῃμένοι μὲν τῃ̂ ὄψει** του̂ προορα̂ν, ὑπὸ δὲ τη̂ς μείζονος βοη̂ς τω̂ν πολεμίων τὰ ἐν αὐτοι̂ς παραγγελλόμενα οὐκ ἐσακούοντες, κινδύνου τε πανταχόθεν περιεστω̂τος καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα καθ' ὅτι χρὴ ἀμυνομένους σωθη̂ναι.

If οἱ πι̂λοι doesn't refer to helmets, why would they just have been called ἐν οἱ̂ς οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὐκ ἐδύναντο διώκειν ὅπλα ἔχοντες.?? So I assume that Thucydides means their helmets. That said, between the description of the burning woods and the clouds of missiles, I take τοξεύματα to mean all manner of missiles, and not just arrows--clods of dirt, rocks, javelins.
A line or two later, the comment οὐδὲν σφίσιν αὐτοι̂ς χρήσασθαι ἀποκεκλῃμένοι μὲν τῃ̂ ὄψει suggests to me that they had raised their shields to cover their faces, thus rendering themselves unable to see. perhaps I'm reading too much in!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Τοξεύματα means arrows,because "τόξον" is the bow. And because just next to this he speaks about the small javelins "δοράτια". And just before this he defines that a psiloi threw rocks,and toxeumata nd javelins and whatever each one had.
They couldn't see mainly because of the dust and ashes from the burned forest,that were additionally mixed with the missiles,as he mentions just previously.
I didn't follow you on why he must be speaking of helmets,thought.
Khaire
Giannis

[Kineas]

πι̂λος , ὁ,

A. wool or hair wrought into felt, used as a lining for helmets, Il.10.265 ; for shoes, Hes.Op.542, cf. Pl.Smp.220b, Luc.Rh.Pr.15; but τὴν τω̂ν οἰκείων πίλων γένεσιν, playfully, of the human hair, Pl.Lg. 942e.

II. anything made of felt, esp. close-fitting cap, Hes.Op.546, Arist.GA785a27, AP6.90 (Phil.), etc.; πίλους τιάρας φορέοντες wearing turbans for caps, Hdt.3.12; ἀντὶ τω̂ν π. μιτρηφόροι ἠ̂σαν Id.7.62 , cf. 61,92 ; πι̂λοι τοι̂ς δημοσίοις IG22.1672.70 ; π. λευκός ib.5(1).1390.13 (Andania, i B. C.); of various fashions, π. ̓Αρκαδικός Polyaen.4.14 ; Λακωνικός Poll.1.149 ; Μακεδονικός, = καυσία, Id.10.162 ; π. χαλκου̂ς a brazen cap, i. e. helmet, Ar.Lys.562 ; of the apex worn by Roman flamines, D.H.2.64 (pl.).

2. felt shoe, λευκοὺς ὑπὸ ποσσὶν ἔχων π. Cratin.100.

3. felt cloth, used for carpets, mats, tents, etc., Hdt. 4.23,73,75, Hp.Aër.18 (pl.), cf. X.Cyr.5.5.7, Aen.Tact.33.3 (pl.), etc.; for horse-cloths, Plu.Art.11.

4. felt cuirass, jerkin, Th.4.34.

So says the LSJ. So note that when the pilos is mentioned as a helmet, it is brazen (in Lysistrata) line 562. Interesting, because Lys. is roughly contemporary with Thuc. And also note that the LSJ feels that the Pilos in Thuc. is a felt jerkin or armour. Just want to note (without provoking a storm) that examination of all the evidence about the so-called "linothorax" would suggest that the thorax could be of felt.

Leaving such an odd and perhaps wild speculation aside, there's lots of evidence for the use of pilos to denote a Spartan cap or helmet. Appian gives this speech to Ep. after Leuctra,
"οὑ̂τός ἐστιν ὁ περὶ Λευ̂κτρα νικήσας καὶ τὴν πατρίδα, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς οὐχ ὑπομένουσαν, οὐδ' εἴ τις ξένος ἔχοι Λακωνικὸν πι̂λον, ἐπὶ τὴν Σπάρτην αὐτὴν προαγαγών.

[Kineas]

Sorry, Giannis, I suspect you']re right--you are the native speaker. But the LSJ says that Τοξεύματα can be used as any projectile,. and there's plenty of Classical evidence to support that it sometimes means more than just arrows. Perhaps in this case it does.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

About the pilos, given that in sculptures(at least one athenian grave stone) and in pottery (mainly in Italy that is) soldiers are shown with a pilos that is soft,when someone is not defining that the pilos is bronze (χαλκούς), should we assume that it has to be bronze just because a soldier is wearing it? Ince again it seems plausible that the pilos was originally felt and only some of the soldiers had bronze ones. This would very well explain why the piloi didn't "estegon ta toxeumata".

Now about the word "toxeumata", I would agree that it can meen any missile, but in this particular case of Thucydides it means just arrows,because in one same paragraph Thucydides is separating them from rocks and javelins twice. And the piloi didn't protect them only from "toxeumata". Obviously any other helmet wouldn't give much protection from heavier javelins either.
Khaire
Giannis

[Kineas]

Giannis, last night I went through all 34 entries on Perseus that had Classical references to the pilos (as late at Josephus, no less) and boy are they consistent. it's a felt cap...and it is only NOT felt when someone specified a "bronze" pilos.

That really makes me wonder! because we're in the process of getting Boeotian helmets made, and suddenly I wonder if poorer hoplites weren't wearing cloth or leather or felt caps--Boeotian and Pilos? And only rich front rankers had helmets?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hmm,maybe...but before supporting this odd theory,lets try to find convincing reasosns that the Spartans were not wearing bronze helmets for some specific reason... for example they were marines originally,that were left in the island for a somewhat light job. They had been in that island,in poor conditions for months. And they had to rund and defend themselves from an unexpected Athenian Attack...What i want to say is that it seems rather implausible that the spartans didn't have bronze helmets, and that there may were reasons that in that particular moment they were forced to fight only with their helm paddings.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Before you two get too carried away, and talk yourselves into believing the 'Spartans wore felt caps' theory, allow me to throw a little cold water in !
First, based on this small piece of Thucydides, we could only conclude that it is ambiguous to moderns as to whether felt or bronze piloi are meant.

Second, while soldiers out of action/in 'undress' MAY be depicted in iconography in felt piloi/helmet liners ( and that is not entirely certain) there is NO DEFINITE evidence (so far) that Greek Poleis Hoplites went into battle without bronze helmets of some kind........none at all, which removes any ambiguity at once, especially if Thucydides readers knew that. At the risk of stating the obvious, where a word has more than one meaning, it is context which decides.
( And yes, I am well aware that the intriguing possibility exists that Macedonian poorer warriors may have had leather/hide helmets; that Spanish contemporary warriors certainly did; and that the latin word 'galea' originally referred to a leather/hide helmet ( as opposed to 'cassis' - metal helmet)


Thirdly, lexicons are not 'gospel' - most were written a hundred years ago, and meanings are often no more than educated guesses, often wrong..... e.g. many still define 'longche' as 'pike!
Defining Thucydides use of the word as 'felt cuirass or jerkin' is another example - a wild guess, and obviously just plain wrong! "[something] couldn't keep out missiles; and when javelins hit their bodies the shafts broke off in their armour" - associate the two parts and you can see how the guess arose. :roll:

Fourthly, only a tiny fragment of literature survives....certainly not enough that a mere 34 references to piloi, the vast majority being references to the far more common cap, is in any way statistically significant to the use of bronze piloi as helmets !!

As to trying to suppose that they fought in helmet liners through arming in haste, Thucydides would have told us so - as he does when speaking of the over-whelming of the southern Guard-post; or assuming they were specifically "Marines" ( was there ever such a thing? ...a different/specific armament/training for ship-borne Hoplites/epibatai ?) ....that relies on far too many assumptions/guesses....Thucydides tells us they were a 'garrison', not epibatai

If there was a reason for them fighting, highly unusually, in 'helmet liners' or peasant caps, I am certain Thucydides would have remarked on it and told us why........

On grounds of probability therefore we may say that it is highly likely that Thucydides is referring to bronze piloi, and didn't need to specify 'bronze' because the context is clear.

[Paralus]

I'll start with the fact that the "piloi" were not protecting the Spartans from arrows. It has beed discussed again,but how possible is it that the word "pilos" here is refering not to the metal conical helmet,but to the felt cap worn under the helmet? How can a corinthian,or better,a chalkidean helmet protect much better than a pilos,provided the men fighting in a phalanx are covered by their shields? The shield can cover you to the eyes.

I must admit that this is bloody fascinating. I can’t recall how many times I must have read Thucydides over the decades – particularly the actions in and around Pylos / Shpacteria – and in all that time it has taken Giannis’ thread for me to notice the felt helemts of the Spartans failing to keep out arrows.

I have Rex Warner’s translation and he translates it as “…their felt helmets could not keep out the arrows…â€

[Paullus Scipio]

Some other points of note that arise from Thucydides description are:
1. The high state of Spartan morale; they ( less than 400 Hoplites, with possibly the same number of Helots as psiloi in support) confidently advanced ("wishing to come to grips with them" Thuc:IV.33.1) to attack 800 Athenian and allied Hoplites ( outnumbered two-to-one ! ) and ignored the teeming horde ( several thousand!!! ) of Athenian light troops ( peltasts, psiloi, and armed rowers), and clearly expected to drive them into the sea.
2. The strong legend of Spartan invincibility:Even with their huge advantage in numbers, the Athenians acted cautiously, the Hoplites merely holding their ground while the light troops, broken up into companies of approximately 200, attacked with missiles from all sides. This timid behaviour tells us that the Spartan legend of invincibility was alive and well. ( or perhaps we should put this down to good tactics on Kleon and Demosthenes part?)
As the Spartan charges grew weaker, the light troops grew bolder, and the legend began to fade, for the first time in hundreds of years.
3. After Komon and the Messenians scale the cliffs so that once again the Spartans are assailed from all sides there is a truce, and surrender is signified by a lowering of shields, and waving of the right arm......
4. There is a significant difference in Spartan behaviour, compared to 'days of old'. Those who surrendered ( 128 Hoplites dead, 292 surrendered, 120 of whom were Spartiate 'Homioi'/Peers/aristocrats) were not treated harshly on their return to Sparta ( they merely lost their citizenship rights for a short time ( Thuc: V.34.2) Compare this to the ancient treatment of 'tresantes'( tremblers) - at Thermopylae, of the two survivors, Aristodemos had gone berserk and committed suicide in battle at Plataea, while Pantites, though blind by illness and sent to the rear, had hanged himself in shame..... while the sole survivor of the battle against the Argive 300 had committed suicide ( Her: I.82.8 )......
5. Earlier, Sparta had agreed to surrender it's Triremes as part of truce negotiations - some 60 or more - and since 120 Spartiates or more eventually surrendered, this implies that Sparta considered two'Homioi'/peers/equals/ aristocrats worth a Trireme.... to realise what this meant, imagine the U.S. surrendering an Aircraft Carrier for each two American hostages held by the enemy.....Thucydides says this was the most surprising thing in the whole war (Thuc:IV.40.1) which speaks volumes for Spartan propaganda since the Persian Wars......
6. The Spartan prisoners managed to retain a sense of humour (Thuc: IV.40.2)...on being taunted with the jibe that " I suppose it was the best and bravest who fell" ( implying that it was the skulkers and cowards who surrendered), a Spartan replied " the spindle ( i.e. arrow) that could pick out the bravest would be worth a great deal indeed".....

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:
[quote]The reason the Spartans had it so bad was that their tormentors had “no heavy equipmentâ€