The Myth of the \'Middle Class\' Hoplite

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

To go back to the point of the "middle class," one should be hesitant to even use the term, especially when discussing the society of ancient Greece. Modern political theorists who specialize in class are really only able to cover contemporary and near-contemporary society. Think of Marx, for example. To find the "class" of an individual hoplite (much less an entire group) one would have to do several things, including ascertaining his amount of wealth and/or capital and also analyzing his consciousness of self (as according to Geertz, Freud, and I believe the Frankfurt school of thought). The former would be almost impossible, the latter undoubtedly impossible. Although this method is the most informative, it demands far too many details that are unavailable to us. So how do we use the term, then? I am not adding too much to the discussion, I'm afraid, except that the ideology behind a tiered "class system" is almost entirely intellectual, not really social (i.e., it is a fabrication). This thesis does, however, rely on the formative opinion that human beings generally think/act similarly in akin socio-cultural conditions, in line with a sort of Weberian-Freudian dialectic. All in all, an excellent question that will probably never be satisfactorily explained.

Sidenote - best phrase thus far: "rowdy urban proletariat..." I love that!

[Scythian]

The trouble with talking about a "middle class" is that, whilst the Greeks did have a class system of sorts it was more connected to leisure and liberty than to wealth. The two are connected, but not necessarily.

At the bottom of the social scale are the slaves. However as the Greeks accepted that anyone might become a slave there is no great stigma associated to slavery.

Just above that are foreigners, as they have hardly any rights and might suddenly have their freedom taken away for no particularly good reason. They are dependent on the goodwill of the Polis in which they are resident.

Next are paid workers and above those are the self employed.
Aristotle made a list of honorable and dishonorable jobs. The basic idea is that if you are self sufficient, that is good, but if you work for someone else that is bad. Teachers, craftsmen and doctors were seen as no better than laborers annd prostitutes whilst Slavers and pirates are seen to be good, honorable jobs (and sub sets of hunters strangely enough)

At the top are those who have so many slaves working for them that they do not need to work at all and can dedicate themselves to suitable leisure pursuits, such as politics.

If there is a "middle class" it would be the people who work for themselves. However such a group includes the very poor as well as the fairly rich. Members of the skilled professional underclasses might be much more able to afford hoplite panopoly than a poor shepherd.

The idea of a "middleclass" hoplite is not apropriate to Greece as their class system did not follow the same sort of rules as the one which people have tried to superimpose on them

[SigniferOne]

To go back to the point of the "middle class," one should be hesitant to even use the term, especially when discussing the society of ancient Greece. Modern political theorists who specialize in class are really only able to cover contemporary and near-contemporary society. Think of Marx, for example. To find the "class" of an individual hoplite (much less an entire group) one would have to do several things, including ascertaining his amount of wealth and/or capital and also analyzing his consciousness of self (as according to Geertz, Freud, and I believe the Frankfurt school of thought). The former would be almost impossible, the latter undoubtedly impossible. Although this method is the most informative, it demands far too many details that are unavailable to us. So how do we use the term, then? I am not adding too much to the discussion, I'm afraid, except that the ideology behind a tiered "class system" is almost entirely intellectual, not really social (i.e., it is a fabrication). This thesis does, however, rely on the formative opinion that human beings generally think/act similarly in akin socio-cultural conditions, in line with a sort of Weberian-Freudian dialectic. All in all, an excellent question that will probably never be satisfactorily explained.

Your skepticism is far too unwarranted, in my opinion. By what standard of judgment do we have to enlist Freud and Geertz just to understand another person? Your thesis would only be valid if you believe the notion of class-consciousness, i.e. are of a Marxist persuasion already.

'Middle class' in broadest terms refers to that layer of society which resides between the highest stratum and the lowest. Highest being the aristocrats and such who were corralled to pay for the ships, lowest being slaves and/or domestic servants. The free-holding farmer and the urban artisan occupy that middle level. If you wish to employ some sort of class-consciousness, the the last two men are distinguished by a sense of independence and of security over their livelihood, though not so far as having abundant leisure and disposable income.

[Sean Manning]

And, of course, the Greeks clearly recognized class divisions by wealth (although ancestry and profession also affected things). Whether or not most fifth-century hoplites came from the class of men wealthy enough to buy arms, spend time training, and support themselves without working for another man, the tradition was that they should. We know a lot about how this was handled in the Roman republic, but I'm not sure how much we know of the mechanics in Classical Greece.

[SigniferOne]

As came out in my discussions with Paul(lus Scipio), I don't share the view that all hoplites were of the upper, leisurly, stratum, and I'm not sure where the association between the two came about from. If in fact those were the primary hoplite enlistents, we would have to associate hoplites with the aristocratic class rather than something lower. In my view it would be far more correct to equate hoplites with the free-holding farmers. Yes they could afford to buy their own armor, but it's not like they decked it out in gold and ornaments. Scavenging the battlefield for expensive armaments of other dead soldiers was not an uncommon occurrence. Thus such farmers would, with difficulty, equip themselves with this heavy armor, but it isn't as if they'd have leisure to go to military schools or something, or engage in philosophical talks with Plato in the gardens of Academus. On the contrary these men had little to do with Plato. Again, their best representative is Aristophanes, describing the Marathon-warriors -- not unlike the WW2 veterans whom we all know, grizzled and tough, as opposed to universally college-educated and professorate.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And yet,even during the Peloponnesian war we see several battles Democrats and Oligarchs are fighting equally and some times the oligarchs win. Remember that even in Athens the Democrats under Thrasibulus won the battle in Munichia just because they fought in favorable ground,even though most of the were not hoplites(!). What does this mean? That the oligarchs,who not always but in the vast majority of the time were the aristocrats, were about equal in numbers as the the democrats during the peloponnesian war,the war that as Thucydides tells us all cities reached their ultimate numbers of hoplites by recruiting lower class citizens. In fact he says,before that war,all cities believed they had more hoplites than they actually had. I think it's in book one.
Another indication of who formed the phalanx,is the battle of Marathon itself. In the ultimate strugle for survival,the Athenians in 490 bc raised a phalanx of 10.000 Only some decades later,in 430 bc the population of Attica is estimated to about 300.000 people. At that time the hoplite force of Athens is estimated to about 20.000 men. This is 6,6% of the population!
Khairete
Giannis

[Sean Manning]

As came out in my discussions with Paul(lus Scipio), I don't share the view that all hoplites were of the upper, leisurly, stratum, and I'm not sure where the association between the two came about from. If in fact those were the primary hoplite enlistents, we would have to associate hoplites with the aristocratic class rather than something lower. ... On the contrary these men had little to do with Plato. Again, their best representative is Aristophanes, describing the Marathon-warriors -- not unlike the WW2 veterans whom we all know, grizzled and tough, as opposed to universally college-educated and professorate.

I agree (although not with the idea that philosophy was purely for rich men like Cleon or Platon). The leisured rich would be the wealthier members of the hippeis/equites/knights depending on period and culture. But I think that landowning small farmers, skilled craftsmen, shopowners, and professionals were in an economic position we can call 'middle class,' and that the ideal hoplite was a prosperous small farmer who would fit into this category. In most societies with an infantry militia, this level of society provides the bulk of the men. In short, I agree with Paullus about who fought, but I don't have a problem with the “middle class” term.

The other thing is that leisure doesn't always increase with wealth in a preindustrial society. The poor generally have more time than productive things to do in it for most of the year, although they get their hands dirty a lot. The rich don't get their hands dirty as much, and they do more expensive things in their spare time, but they don't necessarily have a lot more of it.

I gues another example is the government of the 5,000 citizen hoplites in Athens, which IIRC Thucydides describes as a moderate oligarchy. In Paullus' argument, which I think is correct, this was a minority of the men able and willing to fight as hoplites.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Your skepticism is far too unwarranted, in my opinion. By what standard of judgment do we have to enlist Freud and Geertz just to understand another person? Your thesis would only be valid if you believe the notion of class-consciousness, i.e. are of a Marxist persuasion already.

If you can find a method through which one could accurately ascertain the identity of the true mechanics of class consciousness (other than something such as "I am a slave, fisherman, aristocrat, etc.) in ancient Greece, please inform me! Honestly, I do not think true class consciousness existed then (or even now, in many ways). Even if it did, there is no way to find out what the vast majority of individual Greeks thought about such things unless they left behind enough evidence. (Besides, I've already said class doesn't really work here anyway, especially not in the Marxist way).

All I am saying here is that it is basically impossible to accurately find such a thing, despite the uses of modern techniques (thus Freud, Geertz, etc.), not that one absolutely must use said techniques, or even if they fit in this situation (read the 2nd sentence in my post above). For example, I could throw out Bordieu's idea of cyclic reciprocity or of temporary equilibrium as an attempt to explain the so-called Periclean Age, which was shattered by the Peloponnesian War. But I won't, because: A) I don't think it fits the situation, and B) I think some of Bordieu's ideas are loony.

Anyhoo, I'm not trying to convince you, only to explain my thoughts. I can't really say more concerning this, only in other ways and using different vocabulary. Besides, I feel silly name-dropping theorists that I don't even care about! :lol:

[Scythian]

And yet,even during the Peloponnesian war we see several battles Democrats and Oligarchs are fighting equally and some times the oligarchs win. Remember that even in Athens the Democrats under Thrasibulus won the battle in Munichia just because they fought in favorable ground,even though most of the were not hoplites(!). What does this mean? That the oligarchs,who not always but in the vast majority of the time were the aristocrats, were about equal in numbers as the the democrats during the peloponnesian war,the war that as Thucydides tells us all cities reached their ultimate numbers of hoplites by recruiting lower class citizens. In fact he says,before that war,all cities believed they had more hoplites than they actually had. I think it's in book one.
Another indication of who formed the phalanx,is the battle of Marathon itself. In the ultimate strugle for survival,the Athenians in 490 bc raised a phalanx of 10.000 Only some decades later,in 430 bc the population of Attica is estimated to about 300.000 people. At that time the hoplite force of Athens is estimated to about 20.000 men. This is 6,6% of the population!
Khairete
Giannis

Whilst the population of Attica may have been estimated at 300,000 the Adult male population was given as 60,000 men at it's height. This dropped significantly after the plague yet the Athenians could still field an army of over 18,000 at Delium in 424 (admittedly with a lot of light troops).

Let's consider a more recent comparison.
In 1914 the estimated number of men of eligible military age in Britain was 5.5 million. The total british forces in 1914 numbered 710,000 of whom only 80,000 were battle ready.
Eventually, drawing from every level of society, they managed to draft 2.25 million into the army.

For the Athenians to have a hoplite force of 20,000 men means that a third of the entire adult male populace of Athens was a hoplite! That is most definitely not a small, elite social group.

Your talk about battles between democrats and Oligarchs seems to make the assumption that the only people supporting an oligarchy would have been the aristocracy, or some other economic elite. This is not true. Men of wealth and influence would have been on both sides and the common people would have also been on both sides.
The oligarchic / democratic conflicts had a lot to do with whether the populace of the cities wanted to side with Athens or Sparta during the Peloponnesian war.
When democracies were seen to be corrupt and anarchic it was natural for common people to seek some other form of government. Since such a small percentage of the populace were able to dedicate the time to regularly participate in the democratic processes there was very little difference in practice between some oligarchies and Greek democracies. (take the rule of the in Athens 5000 for example. Do you really think that there would be many more people involved in the democratic processes?)

Hoplites included people from every economic group, although the very poorest only joined them if someone else supplied the equipment. The very richest men acting as generals fought as hoplites, as did the poorer men.

If there was a middle class in Athens it was not directly related to wealth but to some other measure of the level of freedom they posessed.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

When democracies were seen to be corrupt and anarchic it was natural for common people to seek some other form of government. Since such a small percentage of the populace were able to dedicate the time to regularly participate in the democratic processes there was very little difference in practice between some oligarchies and Greek democracies. (take the rule of the in Athens 5000 for example. Do you really think that there would be many more people involved in the democratic processes?)

The Ekklesia could take place only if more than 6000 people were present. It took place every about nine days plus in emergency cases. Between 330-326 the whole ramp where the assemply was made was enlarged to support even greater numbers. If you want to gather 6000 people regularly you have to give rights to many more.
Athens had a fleet of 300 ships. Put 200 men in each ship,or if you like do not count the epibatae who were of the hoplite class, so 180 in each ship.This makes 54000 men to man the fleet. Now we must exclude the allies but I dont know what percentage of sailors were allied. However it is very clear that the higher class in Athens formed the cavalry AND phalanx. The MIDDLE class formed the main body of the phalanx and the lower class-not including slaves-formed the fleet. I don't understand the notion that there was no middle class in Athens and that everyone who could find a shield and a spear perhaps stolen from a dead in a battlefield could join the phalanx. After all there were catalogues and oaths to be taken by youths and lists of names of new recruits.
Khairete
Giannis

[Kineas]

I'm not sure I know enough to jump into this debate, but as usual, I'll try.

In "Rags and Riches, The Costume of Athenian Men in the 5th Century BC (A.G. Geddes, [i]The Classical Quarterly[i] new series Vol. 37 no. 2 Cambridge University Press 1987) Geddes goes out of his way to demonstrate the relative equality that Athenian men sought in their dress and deportment. He makes important points about late Archaic and early Classical Greek life inside (and outside) the poleis, and about the growth of shared values that cut across earlier cultural norms of extravagant display and Iliad-like behavior. He believes (and I believe) that these new norms were created by the world of the Democracy, by ideals of service to the state vice to one's family, and by pressures of a growing political class, not all of whom could, or would, be capable of living in the "Aristocratic" world of the early Archaic.

That said, the riches or poverty of a family may have complications that are impervious to our study. even recently (even today, in the UK) there are class distinctions--annoying and unfair, but nonetheless present--that mean that a very rich man may not be considered "upper class" while a very, very poor man entitled to put "Hon" in front of his name IS considered upper class. Daft as this may seem, especially to us North Americans, it may be that things like class defy easy categorization.

In his article, Geddes says

Earlier, in the fifth century, Socrates had also worn a tribon.118 He too showed by his dress that he was tough and self-disciplined, could endure pain, and despised riches. Whether he was in reality poor is something of a mystery. He was a hoplite and seems in Plato not to have to work at his trade as a stone mason, although he had a wife and family. So, if he was poor, it was the Greek poverty that meant having wealth enough not to have to work, but not enough to be able to perform liturgies. The look that he cultivated was the Dorian look, what was called in Athens laconizing. He may even have initiated the fashion. After Socrates other philosophers like Diogenes and Antisthenes also affected the rags of poverty. 'I can see your vanity through the holes in your cloak', Socrates is supposed to have said to Antisthenes.19

Again, I think it is worth noting that Socrates's poverty may be more apparent than real--and that the definition of upper class and lower class can be very complicated. Poorer men may well support an "aristocratic" class--especially if they themselves are dependents of that class! while wealthy men may well support the "Demos" in pursuit of power or from actual political idealism. Even today, in the USA, Republicans--the party of the rich, no matter how you slice it--have a huge amount of support from people who stand to gain almost nothing from their policies but who, ideologically, side with the more conservative group (and I mean no pejorative comment--just an observation!).

Democracy was a relatively new experiment in Greece when the hoplite became the mainstay of Greek armies--at home and overseas--in the 5th C. BC (and that's the period I'm discussing.) The evidence of literature, food, and fashion shows a society where men of the political class actively sought to eradicate class difference to make the "group" --that is, the city-state--more important than the older aristocratic ideals of Homer. Whether that equates to a "middle" class is a different question--but I think it would be hard to argue with Geddes points on fashion or with James Davidson's similar arguements in "Cortesans and Fishcakes." Citizens sought to level the playing field--to move society toward a "middle." Not a middle class--just a middling way of life.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I agree with what you say Christian. However the discussion started by its title: The myth of the "middle class" hoplite.
This can only mean one thing,that its author(Paullus) believes that it wasn't only the middle class that formed the hoplite force,but also (and mainly) the lower class. So we need to define what the classes are and then search and see who formed the phalanx. As it has been demostrated by many in the discussion,it's almost impossible to give a total account on what is middle and what low class. There are many parameters and fifferent ways to see it. There's the social,the economic and so on. I define "middle" by comparison to the other classes. If we speak strictly there should be more classes than the three,the upper the middle and the lower. But given the variety of people who did join the phalanx,it is practical enough to separate them for our purpose to those three classes. So if the upper class for the cavalry and occasionally the phalanx itself and if the very poor,those who cannot afford armour,they man the fleet and in the end,they don't even want to join the phalanx as they don't share the common feeling to protect their own land or property,then inevitably we have a middle class inbetween that it happens to be those who form the phalanx. This class includes also the metoikoi,who can be ritch,yet not aristocrats and do not form the cavalry. It can even include poor Socrates who may was supplied his panoply by his (very) ritch friends. Now the arguement that Paul made in his first post was based on something I said,that this middle class was those who you would find in the agora or in the gymnasium and he may be correct that most of those who formed the phalanx didn't have time to go to the gymnasium. But this doesn't mean they shouldn't be called middle class. And again I'm not quite sure that the relatively poor who lived in the town itself wouldn't have time for a nice talk under a stoa in the agora. Why wouldn't a poor shop owner join his friends in the palaistra in the afternoon? Does he belong to the upper class? Or in the lower? Does he work for someone else,is he dependent to him,or is he so ritch like Nikias who had 2000 slaves working in the mines. And was Kleon,one of Athens' most famous politicians and generals of the time of the upper class just because his leather shop was doing well?
Khairete
Giannis

[Scythian]

The Ekklesia could take place only if more than 6000 people were present. It took place every about nine days plus in emergency cases. Between 330-326 the whole ramp where the assemply was made was enlarged to support even greater numbers. If you want to gather 6000 people regularly you have to give rights to many more.

Given that one of the jobs of the Scythian archers in Athens during the peloponnesian war was to seal off the agora and drive every male citizen there into the Ekklesia in order that a quorum of members could be formed I still am not convinced that very many Athenians were ACTIVELY involved in politics. I've seen figures of anywhere between 40,000 - 60,000 who were eligible to vote but how many of those were taking a real interest in the running of the polis and how many were more interested in just getting on with their lives?

I think that the majority of hoplites would be drawn from somewhere around the middle of the Greek social scale. I just think that the term "middle class" is not appropriate when talking of the ancient greeks as they did not use the same class distinctions.

It would be like talking about American senators as being drawn from their Aristocracy. America does not have an aristocracy, but as there is definitely a social and economic elite a person might be tempted to use such a term, because it is close to what they are.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

We can't be sure how many were active. However,Democracy was very new and a very unusual invention,giving for the first time rights to the (let me use the terms here) middle and even lower class citizens. I believe that they were not so few those who participated relatively frequently. Every citizen would be chosen at least once by lot to do a job for the state. Socrates happened by chance to be the president of the court when the ten Generals were judged after Arginousae. The Athenians were considering those who weren't involved in politics ashamed and idiots. The English word "idiot" comes from the word "idiotis" which now means "private" but it used to me the one that is not involved in the state,or the one that acts alone. It had a bad meaning. Pericles in his "Epitaphios" speach praises the Athenian society because they are used to being involved in politics.
What would a citizen have to do to be considered active? Go to the ekklesia once every ten days,listen to the speakers and vote by raising his hand. He would be the one who took a decision,with no representative and such unfortunate results of modern democracy. Even if he was living in the countryside, he could arrange to visit the Agora the day of the next Assembly. And I dare say that during the Peloponnesian War,a time of a crisis when every month critical decission had to be taken and literaly all the population was enclosed in the town,the number of those who were present and active in the ekklesia was very high. In fact it is mentioned some times that even non-citizens went to the ekklesia to watch the speaches!
I can compare it with the student assembly of my university. When there are important decisions to be made the theatre is not enough and the school is full of students who wait to vote(usually by raising hand!). In regular assemblies with no particular theme to be discussed,some times there are so few that no discussion is being made. This is easily understandable. In any case,it is considered better when more voters are present. No wonder why citizens were forced to go in Pnyka.
By the way,did the Athenians still have Skythian "law enforcement agents" during the Peloponnesian war?
Khaire
Giannis

[Kineas]

Given that one of the jobs of the Scythian archers in Athens during the peloponnesian war was to seal off the agora and drive every male citizen there into the Ekklesia in order that a quorum of members could be formed

I'm very interested in the Skythian Archer corps and I thought I'd cataloged all ref's to them. Could you put me on to this one? Like Giannis, I'd assumed that the Skythians disappeared in the 480s at the latest, and probably with the fall of the Tyranny of Hippias, since in most cases "Archer" and "tyrant" went together.