Hoplite - History of the word

[nikolaos]

Paul,

It's a race, not criteria for inclusion in a commonly equipped military unit. That being the case, the greaves/aspis/helmet can only represent a common standard to level the playing field for athletic competition so that guys in a tube and yoke or bell cuirass aren't up against guys with a sling.

That said, your argument makes a good case for the phalanx as separate unit from the light armed troops being an artifact of the classical as opposed to archaic period. After all, there's no need for differentiation if the light armed troops are intermingled with the more heavily armed troops. But once they're separated out you need to be able to call them something, and a new noun is required.

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

The article in full argues that there is no linguistic, literary, or artistic evidence at all for a pure "hoplite" phalanx before 480 or even 460, and quite a bit of evidence to suggest otherwise--and even follows the historiography of the movement to suppress the light-armed from the Phalanx among modern historians starting in 1969.

I’ve read the article. He does a good job of deconstructing Ober’s rules of Agon, but his case for “Homeric,” “Massed” combat down to the 480’s is weak at best.

To choose a few of his examples, he posits that the fighting over Leonidas’s body shows the tactics were the opened, fluid tactics he describes for Homer’s heroes. By this logic, the fighting over the fallen Spartan King at Leuktra shows that the Spartans were fighting a mass of 50 ranks of Thebans in some sort of fluid, opened order. I think we can agree that this is unlikely and fighting over a fallen king does not mean your tactics are fluid. In fact I think the reverse is true. It is in fighting over a patch of ground, i.e., that on which your fallen king lay, or a specific section of battlefield, that is beginning of what will later become othismos.

He also says that the Athenians “exluded” non-hoplite elements from their ranks so as to make a psychologically impressive “charge”- drawing on the Charge of the Cyrean hoplites almost a century later for analogy. Frankly I find this argument silly. If there were a military benefit to having light troops mixed in the ranks, then abandoning them unilaterally would be suicidal. If there were not then I see no reason to think that they had to wait until Marathon to figure that out. The lack of a long, fast charge prior to marathon implies to me that they did not have to clear a dead-zone of many interspersed missile units in the preceeding period before meeting the persians. Scare tactics sound good to arm-chair generals, but seldom work more than once!

To me the whole notion of a “Hoplite revolution” at any date is ill-founded. There is simply an evolution of Greek armoured infantry, whose tactics evolve and probably cycle to some extent over time. I believe the Chigi when it shows “Hoplites” armed with a longche and javelin. This doesn’t make them any less capable of close in fighting than a pair of pila does a Roman. Later we see a trend towards the loss of missile function for hoplites, but this does not mean a radical change in the manner of close-in fighting. Surely even early archaic Greeks could pull off the type of shield-walls performed by tribal Germanic “barbarians” in the next millennia. This is surely a better model than stone-aged New Guinean hill-men.

I also don’t buy the literal notion that each hoplite had 2 psiloi huddled behind his aspis as some would read Tyrtaeos. Differential troop types are always better used in discrete units, or ranks, attached to one another than simply mixed. Krentz cites Hunt (1997) for a scheme where 1 rank of hoplites backed by 7 ranks of helots- which smacks of persian practice and probably would have been referenced. Why choose this over 4 or 8 ranks of hoplites and a group of helots in a mass a short distance behind them?

Along the lines of what Stephanos wrote above, just because Hoplites could fight in close order in massed ranks, does not mean they always did. Most of the killing in fact probably occurred when at least one side was in disarray- after routing.

[Paullus Scipio]

I heartily concur with Paul B. here, and share his views on this subject.Van Wees and others of his ilk are arguing on very weak ground in suggesting that the Hoplite phalanx as a unique tactic only came about after the Persian wars. These rather weak arguments have been thoroughly debunked by Wheeler and others. I also concur with the view that Hoplite warfare came about by evolution rather than 'revolution', and I don't believe many scholars hold the latter view these days.
The weakness of the Van Wees viewpoint is readily appreciated when one bears in mind that the 'Father of History', Herodotus, is our first Greek Historian, and he is writing a generation after the Persian Wars ! He is our earliest source, so of course there is no literary evidence for the Phalanx prior to this! (DOH! ). One can logically conclude NOTHING from the lack of evidence of the use of the word 'Hoplite' prior to this as a result. It is only true to say that because there is no surviving literature prior to Herodotus, we don't know whether the word was in general use or not. Nor does the lack of it's appearance in the surviving extremely scanty epigraphy tell us anything at all either - it is not a word one would expect to see in epigraphical pronouncements, and not enough survives to draw any conclusions from anyway !
Before Herodotus there are only scraps of poetry, which tend to follow the 'Homeric' style, (e.g. Tyrtaeus) thus making it difficult to determine whether thay refer to 'Hoplite Phalanx Warfare' or not. This is the more so when it is realised that 'psiloi' skirmished while the Hoplites stood in open/normal order, and they could and almost certainly did skirmish from within the ranks on occasion, and then withdrew to the rear while the Hoplites closed up for the 'charge'/hand-to-hand fighting. As to 'psiloi' not existing, or not existing 'separately' before classical times, I think it is safe to assume that servants always assisted their masters by picking up rocks and hurling them, and then getting out of the way when the 'hand-to-hand' stuff started etc, since the dawn of time !

It is not generally realised that slaves/servants frequently participated in battles with their Roman legionary masters. Just because they are rarely mentioned does not mean they weren' there!

Van Wees and those who follow him are largely arguing from an 'absence of evidence' point of view, always a dangerous proposition. :x

[Kineas]

Well, at least we regard the evidence as it is... not as we'd like it to be.

Picking a handful of debatable issues in a 15 page argument is easy, and useful criticism (and I agree with each of them)but not really a valid method of debunking the theory, which is really about language and not about tactics. I'll return to the argument--show evidence that there's anything like a "hoplite phalanx" before 500 BC. See, if the Chigi vase is used against you--you're against it. If philology is against you--well, then there's "insufficient evidence."

I agree that there's insufficient evidence to "know" anything. But there's some excellent evidence in favor of the "no hoplite" argument, and it starts with the lack of a word to describe such a warrior...

And then there's the equipment, which people assert is designed for group fighting in phalanx--but which I assert is designed for individual fighting. See? I have assertions, too!

) )

[PMBardunias]

Picking a handful of debatable issues in a 15 page argument is easy, and useful criticism (and I agree with each of them)but not really a valid method of debunking the theory, which is really about language and not about tactics.

This isn't pile on Krentz day- he seems a nice fellow, he was the first to contact me for a copy of my othismos article. This paper was mostly about debunking the agonal nature of hoplite combat, which he does. His last section on hoplite tactics is just weak, though no weaker than many other's. The few examples I picked were pivotal to his presentation.

I'll return to the argument--show evidence that there's anything like a "hoplite phalanx" before 500 BC.

Describe what is "like a hoplite phalanx" and I'll have a go at it. There is nothing unique about the ancestral hoplite phalanx. A group of heavily armed and armored men fighting in any formation from a 2 rank line to an amorphous swarm of varying depth is phalanx-like. This discussion really needs some sort of definition for what constitutes a revolution. Adopting the aspis and sauroter for example don't constitute a revolution, some tactical change associated with them could be. I'm less than convinced by the common arguements about the qualitative jump in utility of the aspis and sauroter over whatever immediately preceeded it. Hopefully I have convinced some of you by now that the notion of pushing en masse in a side-on stance with your shoulder in the bowl of the shields is not likely and the idea that the shield is double gripped because of weight and rimmed to allow it to be rested on the shoulder is also a desperate reach. You'll see perfectly good large single-grip shields on the Assyrian thread I started. Most other "phalanx-like" formations (the roman fulcum, boardweals) have been carried out with non-dome shaped single grip shields and no sauroters. Surely these are sufficiently like a phalanx.

In fact, the only way to make a group of heavily armored men with only at most two missiles not phalanx-like is to disperse such men widely amidst a sea of psiloi, as Krentz and van Wees would have it. The first genius to group his heavily armed men as 'close-in fighters' like Homer's Myrmidons will cut right through this. Even the single line of Persian Spara bearers fought as a shield-wall until the Greeks broke through them.

If I am right about the link between aspis and sauroter and the phase of battle known as othismos, then this is about as close to a revolution as you'll get. Even then the othismos was only one portion of a battle, probably not the dominant one early on. It also had to be in existance in some form prior to the aspis. The aspis could only have made the existing tactics more efficient, which in turn may have made othismos more powerful.

[Copenhagen]

It is certainly right that there is not much material from the 450s or 440s or indeed before. But, I’m sure you’ll agree, the same is true for the 430s and 420s. The curious thing about the epigraphic record is not so much the pre 430s absence of the word, it is rather the presence of it at that exact moment.

I must admit I’m not sure what is meant by a word we should expect in epigraphy? If we cannot expect to find the word in the 440s, why then a decade later? When it does appear, it appears in a decree regulating the military organisation and in a treaty between poleis. Inscriptions of these types were certainly around long before.
I remember that until a seventh fragment of IG I3 1 was published in the mid-1990s quite a few scholars supported the restoration ??????? in the first line. But I digress …

What I wanted to point out was the occurance of the word (even though warriors fighting exactly like, similarly or even very differently had existed decades or centuries) coincides with another development, that of a political sociology that analysed political society in terms of a military-social-political triad and claimed the hoplite for the wealthy and the oligarchs, while associating light-armed and rowers with the poor and the democrats.

I’m sure that every one (nowadays at least) considers the ’spin’ of the Old Oligarch (Pseudo-Xenophon for those not of the Anglo-Saxon tradition) to be just that – spin. But his ideological biases must be taken very seriously in the event his views were shared by other elite writers.

It seems to me that we are dealing with not one but two hoplites: the hoplite of the battlefield and the hoplite of elite ideology. Question it then, how do we sort them out from each other and is it at all possible?

Christian

[nikolaos]

Wheelers latest contribution on the subject on Archaic warfare comes as editor of "The Armies of Classical Greece". His choices to illustrate the subject of Archaic Warfare are illuminating:

- The ''hoplite reform'' revisited, A.M. Snodgrass
- Ephorus and the prohibition of missiles, Everett L. Wheeler
- The Zulus and the Spartans: a comparison of their military systems, W.S. Ferguson
- Early Greek land warfare as symbolic expression, W.R. Connor
- Fighting by the rules: the invention of the hoplite agôn, Peter Krentz

Other recent publications on the subject such as Hall's History of Archaic Greece, van Wees' Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, and so forth all show a common trend; rather than rejecting the position of van Wees, Krentz, and others as to the structure of archaic greek armies, as Paul and Paul would prefer, they are accepting them as supportable hypotheses that have currency in modern scholarship. In particular Paul M, your desire to declare scholarship contradictory to your beliefs as "debunked" is counter-productive to informed discussion on the subject, as recent literature is increasingly inclusive and open about comparing differing viewpoints as opposed to partisan support of positions.

Cole
Continuing his journey into complete darkness

[PMBardunias]

Other recent publications on the subject such as Hall's History of Archaic Greece, van Wees' Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, and so forth all show a common trend; rather than rejecting the position of van Wees, Krentz, and others as to the structure of archaic greek armies, as Paul and Paul would prefer, they are accepting them as supportable hypotheses that have currency in modern scholarship... as recent literature is increasingly inclusive and open about comparing differing viewpoints as opposed to partisan support of positions.

Paul is a Lawyer (so he dies first!) and I am a Scientist, so both of us are used to a mode of arguement wherein we advocate a specific position and defend it to the hilt. For my part I am the originator of the model of hoplte combat I espouse so I am all the more dedicated to it. I can rip wide gaping holes in my model of hoplite warfare, just as I can in all of the competeing hypotheses, but I would learn little from this. The point of these discussions to me is to put each idea through a trial by fire and see what burns and what emerges tempered stronger. Just as many of you are not shy about applying the heat to my concepts, for which I am greatful, I do the same for other views. That said, Paul and I simply believe that the arguements by Van Wees and others are simply weak and easily refuted.

If you are curious, I can defend any of the competing views on hoplite warfare. There are basically four categories with their adherents: 1) Orthodoxy- othismos dominant, and immediate (Schwartz recently defended this view), 2) Heresy- Hoplites spear-fenced in mass combat, othismos is not literal pushing, but simply advancing (Goldsworthy's paper is the best for this view), 3) Homeric- The view discussed above where Hoplites fought in mixed-troop groups as has been described for Homer's combatants until the Persian wars or later (then they usually adhere to heretic's views after that). 4) Reconstructionist- My view that reconciles #2 and #1 above, with a Crowd-based model of othismos. The charge leads to spear-fencing not othismos and othismos occurs as the masses of men inevitably resist be forced back by each other after coming to close quarters.

To some extent this is simply the result of many blind men groping an elephant. In other cases, it is a product of some scholars going beyond their field of knowledge and not truly understanding the ramifications of their model.

[PMBardunias]

- The Zulus and the Spartans: a comparison of their military systems, W.S. Ferguson

Do any of you have this article?

[Paralus]

Along the lines of what Stephanos wrote above, just because Hoplites could fight in close order in massed ranks, does not mean they always did. Most of the killing in fact probably occurred when at least one side was in disarray- after routing.

It's always been something I've found hard to imagine: packed shoulder to shoulder and creeping under the fellow's shield to the right whilst fighting "hand to hand". I'd suggest that the hand to hand stage of fighting took place in an order that facilitated the practice of such fighting. Also that othismos was a tool of rather than the focus of hoplite warfare. The sources, whilst very often telling us that the infantry engaged in "hand to hand" fighting, rarely describe such. When they do it is clear that this is not "ignorant" or hopeful pokes over the aspis with a dory from a severely constricted rank of hoplites.

An interesting passage to contemplate is the battle of Cynoschepalae (364) where Pelopidas meets his unfortunate end (Pel. 32.3-4):

Accordingly, when Pelopidas saw this, he called back his horsemen and ordered them to charge upon the enemy's infantry where it still held together, while he himself seized his shield at once and ran to join those who were fighting on the hills. Through the rear ranks he forced his way to the front...

A very difficult thing to do if the files are compacted one upon the other and under the shield of the fellow to the right. Again, as it was on a hill these hoplites may have been in a disorgaised state but the text doesn't describe it as such. Indeed Pelopidas forces his way from "the rear ranks" to the front. Pelopidas - in heroic fashion - then died in hand to hand fighting with Alexander's mercenaries who "fought with spears from a distance". Diodorus (15.86.2), at second Mantinea, also writes interestingly:

After the first exchange of spears in which most were shattered by the very density of the missiles, they engaged with swords. And although their bodies were all locked with one another and they were inflicting all manner of wounds, yet they did not leave off; and for a long time as they persisted in their terrible work, because of the superlative courage displayed on each side, the battle hung poised.

Clearly they fought for "a long time" (therefore not a crash and push) and just as clearly the opposing hoplites were "all locked with one another" as they fought with swords. Again a difficult thing to imagine if one is shoulder to shoulder with one's rank-mate and, even more so, creeping under one's rank-mate's shield to the right.

[nikolaos]

Paul B,

While Paul M's profession may explain (if not excuse) his proclivities, your description above has nothing to do with the scientific method. I shouldn't have to tell you that good science requires a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to the observable facts must change, not be defended.

And in the end, that is exactly why van Wees' hypothesis has currency among scholars today. It does tend to fit the observable facts, even if it does clash with the dearly held beliefs of the past. That currency also means he can't simply dismissed because you happen to hold those beliefs.

On another note Ferguson's article is the only one of the above that I haven't got. Its not available on JSTOR or elsewhere online, but we will be getting it shortly from the UofT library, which does have it in its holdings.

FYI, Ferguson wrote it in 1918 in Varians Africa II. Per the reviews it was very well received in its day, and its interesting to see it resurface among Wheeler's collection of recent scholarship on the subject of archaic Greek warfare. I look forward to reading it a great deal.

[PMBardunias]

While Paul M's profession may explain (if not excuse) his proclivities, your description above has nothing to do with the scientific method. I shouldn't have to tell you that good science requires a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to the observable facts must change, not be defended.

Well my first reaction is that you have not been in science long enough if you think that. In reality, researchers defend long obsolete paradigms until they are eventually crushed by the weight of a new paradigm whose author probably had his early career sabotaged by the adherents of the older pradigm. :wink: That said, in this case there is no question of standing up to facts. The "facts" are so sparse and their analysis so subjective that the varyious alternatives often use exactly the same quotes and images to bolster their opinions. This is a "soft" science, and we are forced to chose from various plausable, though ultimately unprovable alternatives. Trying to tear down the logic of each arguement is the best way to test them.

And in the end, that is exactly why van Wees' hypothesis has currency among scholars today. It does tend to fit the observable facts, even if it does clash with the dearly held beliefs of the past. That currency also means he can't simply dismissed because you happen to hold those beliefs.

Van Wees, as Paul M. pointed out, is largely arguing from negative data. Thus his notion of a lack of change from our early model, Homer, until we get a drastic change when we encounter our next credible author, "fits" the data so well because there is a long silence. In order to do this he has to deny the evidence that does indicate a change prior to the 5th c: evolutions in the panoply as aids for massed combat, etc. The biological equivalent of this is thinking that some little hippo-like creature gave birth to a dolphin because we don't have all of the fossil animals that occurred at each step of evolution between them.

[PMBardunias]

It's always been something I've found hard to imagine: packed shoulder to shoulder and creeping under the fellow's shield to the right whilst fighting "hand to hand". I'd suggest that the hand to hand stage of fighting took place in an order that facilitated the practice of such fighting. Also that othismos was a tool of rather than the focus of hoplite warfare.

All of what you wrote is compatable with my model of hoplite combat (if properly understood :wink: ), so I have no quarrel.

The sources, whilst very often telling us that the infantry engaged in "hand to hand" fighting, rarely describe such. When they do it is clear that this is not "ignorant" or hopeful pokes over the aspis with a dory from a severely constricted rank of hoplites.

There are in fact two 'types" described. Sometimes spear-fencing from about 5' is probably indicated. At other times it is shield on shield as perhaps first described by Tyrtaeous, but best seen in Xenophon's post mordem of Coronea- crushed shields and swords stuck in bodies. Both occurred in most battles of the classical period.

[Paralus]

There are in fact two 'types" described. Sometimes spear-fencing from about 5' is probably indicated. At other times it is shield on shield as perhaps first described by Tyrtaeous, but best seen in Xenophon's post mordem of Coronea- crushed shields and swords stuck in bodies. Both occurred in most battles of the classical period.

I imagine that it really comes down to the Greek used. Me? I have to make do with translations as my own aren't that good ( i've been at it a while and it's time for at least a summer Uni course...). Meantime I rely on the fact that "hand to hand" is exactly that. Pelopidas engaed in such at Cynoschepalae with Alexander's mercenaries. They did not: "most of them fought at longer range, thrusting their spears through his armour and covering him with wounds". I'd disagree that spears at a distance qualifies as "hand to hand".

The hoplites in Diodorus' description of second Mantinea clearly indicates serious hand to hand . To my mind, these battling hoplites are not shield to shield with their mates. They are "locked" with their opposites; giving as they get in sword fights. This, clearly to me, means hoplites able to move, dodge and parry with a shield whilst thrusting and slashing with a xiphos. This is near "open order" fighting surely?

[PMBardunias]

The hoplites in Diodorus' description of second Mantinea clearly indicates serious hand to hand . To my mind, these battling hoplites are not shield to shield with their mates. They are "locked" with their opposites; giving as they get in sword fights. This, clearly to me, means hoplites able to move, dodge and parry with a shield whilst thrusting and slashing with a xiphos. This is near "open order" fighting surely?

Well here we do disagree then, for the plain reading of that to me IS men all packed together- which goes to show how subjective all of this evidence is. I've shown in the past, and done this myself, that hoplites can fight sufficiently over the "V" between overlapping shields even when shield to shield. It just doesn't look like what we commonly think of as sword fighting. It almost reminds me of that German fencing style (Mensur? sp.), where men stand right up across from one another and go at it.

As to long battles not implying othismos, I'd point out that all long boxing matches involve extended clinches. Matches where they dance around each other are quicker as the winded opponent makes mistakes. You can be in othismos far longer than you can actively sword fight.

That is not to say spear fencing could not be extended, even though the actual trading of blows is limited by stamina, much of the time might be spent giving your foe the stink-eye and speculating about his paternity across the 5' or so seperating your phalanxes. So this fighting could be extended as well, see the quote below.

At Mantinea, the battle between Achaea and Sparta, not the earlier ones, Polybios describes the mercenaries (Thureophoroi): They fought sometimes in close order, sometimes in pairs: and for a long time so entirely without decisive result, that the rest of the two armies. This is appropriate for thureophoroi, but I have never read anything implying such flexibility in a phalanx of hoplites battling other hoplites.

As to what you call spear vs sword fighting, there are no words to differentiate as far as I know- especially since spear armed men regularly fought sword armed men in the history of warfare. I do think it is instructive to look at the reach of weapons in battle. Ithink of it as a progression: hand, sword, longche, dory, sarissa, pila, missile weapons. Each dictates tactics and there can be a sort of rock-paper-scissors effect. You might think Pila is an oddly taken out of "missile", but when used as an integral part of the advance to melee, it can be though of as a spear with a very long reach that gives one (two) good first strike since in this manner they are not used with skirmishing techniques. Otherwise it is just another missile.



A final comment is that I would be careful with Diodorus's descriptions for Mantinea and the battles of that period. His source, Ephorus, is surely a poor tactical writer.