What the description of Sphacteria has to tell us

[PMBardunias]

Since I missed the whole discussion, a few points:

What is the first date at which we have an unambiguous reference to a Pilos as helmet and not cap? Clearly close to the time at which they started turning civilian hats, the pilos or boetian sun-hat into helmets, they would have to qualify the type as a helmet.

Research has shown arrows to be better at penetrating bronze plate that javelins, so I have no problem with these being bronze Pilos with arrows stuck in them.

That said, surely the minimum hoplite panoply was shield and spear. This is what Athenian Ephebes were provided by the state- not helmets. There is no reason why a 11th rank hoplite would need a helmet. Sure it would be nice to have, but they would not send you home without it!

It seems to me that they were given a typical laconic ambiguous order..... The surprising thing here is that they were given the option of deciding themselves, and that when they did choose capitulation, they were not particularly shamed or shunned for it on their return home.

I would not put too much faith in Thukydides here. Where did he hear the order's wording? Obviously these spartiates were too important to lose, but they were also too important to shame- and thus lose. They may have been given that order, it does fit with the Spartan "pass the buck" mentality when it comes to shameful decisions, but they may simply have disreguarded a direct order to fight to the death as well. Spartans had a nasty habit of disreguarding direct orders when they thought they knew better. What better way to let the laws of Lycurgus "sleep" than to put out the fiction that they did nothing wrong and were defeated by cowards and their spindles.

.... to realise what this meant, imagine the U.S. surrendering an Aircraft Carrier for each two American hostages held by the enemy

For a modern example, look no further than the Israelis freeing dozens of prisoners in exchange for the bodies of dead men.

I think the Spartans could not come to grips with the Athenian phalanx because they soon learned that you cannot ignore light troops when they have to surrounded and you are in a linear phalanx and not a circle or square.

The victory here is perhaps wrongly ascribed solely to the light troops. The other great peltast victory, outside Corinth a generation later, would show that it took hoplites to finish the job. I wonder how things would have gone on the island if there had been no athenian hoplites. The threat of hoplites placed severe tactical limitations on the Spartan force.

[Scythian]

Giannis wrote:

They were actually ordered not to die. Otherwise they would have said "do what the Sparta's laws say"(which means fight to death and not retreat). Instead,they were asked not to do something shamefull. Obviously even at that time the "Spartan mirage" was so strong that Sparta could still not order a surrender.

I don't think one can say they were ordered not to die. It seems to me that they were given a typical laconic ambiguous order.....
"The Spartans order you to make your own decision about yourselves, so long as you do nothing dishonourable/shameful" ......and to Spartans of the old Lycurgan school, surrender would be seen as 'dishonourable/shameful'. The surprising thing here is that they were given the option of deciding themselves, and that when they did choose capitulation, they were not particularly shamed or shunned for it on their return home.
Another example of how the rest of Greece thought of Sparta as 'conservative' when in fact Spartan atitudes had evolved considerably....

I think this is a good example of how powerful the "Spartan mirage" was. Whilst cowardice or disobeying orders were unthinkable the Spartans accepted that choosing not to die in an impossible situation was not dishonorable. Yet the Spartan PR machine was so effective that the rest of the Greeks believed the notion of the Spartans absolute dedication and refusal to withdraw or surrender under any circumstances. This is why the spartan surrender was so surprising.

I was wondering whether the reference to the pilos not keeping out the arrows might be implying that when attacked by missile troops from the back or sides then this was the only piece of armour protecting them and that the rest of their bodies were exposed, as the shields and greaves only protected their front. Against the arrows this was the only piece of protection they had.
The question of whether it is felt or not is an interesting one as the hoplites are clearly being referred to as heavily equipped.

[Phalanx300]

Yes it is interesting, surrendering at a impossible situation was not dishonourable. But was it that weird? Fighting to the death would only cause the number of Spartan Hoplites to drop, victory wasn't possible so preserving Spartan numbers, maybe not for their own sake but for that of Sparta as a whole might be the reason.

And dying by missle attacks in a last stand might have taken away the honour they would otherwise feel when the enemies were Hoplites?

[Paullus Scipio]

As your signature line reminds us, an earlier generation of Spartans did just that at Thermopylae.......

Yes it is interesting, surrendering at a impossible situation was not dishonourable. But was it that weird? Fighting to the death would only cause the number of Spartan Hoplites to drop, victory wasn't possible ....

[Paralus]

As your signature line reminds us, an earlier generation of Spartans did just that at Thermopylae.......

Their ultimate manner of death was little different than what was on offer at Sphacteria as well...

Her. VII 225.3
On this spot while defending themselves with daggers, that is those who still had them left, and also with hands and with teeth, they were overwhelmed by the missiles of the Barbarians, some of these having followed directly after them and destroyed the fence of the wall, while others had come round and stood about them on all sides.

All the while not forgetting those Thespians who chose to stay and die as well as the helots who likely were not offered a choice.

[Phalanx300]

They certainly did, though there might have been other reasons. Regarding the prophecy of the Oracle, being surrounded or ordered so by the king.

And surrendering after retreating to the hill then they would be turned into slaves for Persia most probably. At Spacteria they might know that this wouldn't happen?

Or the most probable reason in my view: leaving their kings body might be the most dishonourable thing for a Hippeis to do.

Though we will never know for sure.

And yes, not to forget the Thespians and helots. What I really like from the last stand is the fact that the Spartans and Thespians, presumably, exchanged cloaks.

[Scythian]

And yes, not to forget the Thespians and helots. What I really like from the last stand is the fact that the Spartans and Thespians, presumably, exchanged cloaks.

That is interesting and not something which I had picked up on. I know it is getting off topic but what made you say this?

[Paullus Scipio]

Phalanx 300 wrote:

Or the most probable reason in my view: leaving their kings body might be the most dishonourable thing for a Hippeis to do.

Though we will never know for sure.

.....uuu..mm..mm the "300" were most unlikely to have been the conventional Hippeis - see discussion elsewhere.....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I hope I'm not sounding like an idiot but I see it happening a lot and it's logical,among foreign speakers. "Hepeis" is the plural form,so you can't say "a hippeis". The singular is "hippeus". Jut an irregular note. The same hapens with the "aspis",which is singular while the plural is "aspides", and the same with "porpax" whos plural is "porpakes".
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Giannis, Something that many of us who speak english do is simply adopt the singular form of the greek, such as Aspis or Porpax, into english as a loan-word. Then when we pluralize it we simply follw the english rule, so Aspises and Porpaxes. I don't know if this remotely acceptable grammatically, but it is clear to english speakers.

[Paralus]

Giannis, Something that many of us who speak english do is simply adopt the singular form of the greek, such as Aspis or Porpax, into english as a loan-word.

English is like that. In fact it is much like those camp followers: a proper tramp.

Problem is, it is also very much like many involved in the current finacial crisis: it borrows but rarely gives back. Just ask the French or those descendants of the Latin tribes about Rome.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Giannis, Something that many of us who speak english do is simply adopt the singular form of the greek, such as Aspis or Porpax, into english as a loan-word. Then when we pluralize it we simply follw the english rule, so Aspises and Porpaxes. I don't know if this remotely acceptable grammatically, but it is clear to english speakers.

Yes,I understand this,and to be honest,i've found myself many times using the english plural,like "aspises" and "porpaxes". My original comment was about the opposite happenning,which is yet more strange,the plural form "hippeis" being used as singular, for example "a hippeis". I wonder if Roman re-enactors are used to saying "gladiuses" and "lorica segmentatas". Or even more, "a caligae".
But those comments are very off topic.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

Yes,I understand this,and to be honest,i've found myself many times using the english plural,like "aspises" and "porpaxes". My original comment was about the opposite happenning,which is yet more strange,the plural form "hippeis" being used as singular, for example "a hippeis". I wonder if Roman re-enactors are used to saying "gladiuses" and "lorica segmentatas". Or even more, "a caligae".
But those comments are very off topic.

Fun though.

English, even to a native speaker, is a bastard of a language. The incessant borrowings - that should be impostions from conquerors in the main - lead to a language that is as much a stickler for its rules as a politician is for rectitude and honesty at election time. Really, I haven't the faintest idea how individuals such as yourself cope with feminine nature (in terms of changing its mind in the classic cliche ... oops, borrowed word) of this language. I began life as a teacher of English (and history) and was forever attempting to explain to students when to ignore each and every rule.

Perhaps the plural of "gladius" is "Gladii"? And the Hippies were also homoiois!

Back to Paulluse's (!) point about the "300", I agree that it is unlikely that, even though performing the funtion, these were not the hippies. These were chosen particularly for the task on the basis of leaving at least a single son to the state. I'd think they were all from the year classes over thirty. I take that view based on ancient infant mortality and the fact that these sons, who surely were to survive their fathers to guarantee no loss of manpower, would need to have either passed through the agoge or near enough to it. The ten youngest year classes are likely to have had infant or near infant sons - for the most part - with no guarantee of survival.

[Phalanx300]

.....uuu..mm..mm the "300" were most unlikely to have been the conventional Hippeis - see discussion elsewhere.....

Yes, my mistake. They probably weren't the Hippeis, or at least, alot of them probably weren't.

That is interesting and not something which I had picked up on. I know it is getting off topic but what made you say this?

I bit late reply to this. But anyways, I've read that tradition suggest that they exchanged their cloaks as a sign of respect probably. I don't know if thats what truelly happened though.

[PMBardunias]

English, even to a native speaker, is a bastard of a language.

Paralus, if you have not seen it, there is an excellent BBC series "The Adventure of English" that examines this in detail. (I can keep this on topic by mentioning how the english language picked up many Greek and Latin words in the flurry of translations of ancient texts, many that we still rely on, that occured in the late 16th- 17th century.)