Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea
#16
I'd have to agree with Christian (Kineas) on the matter of Thucydides: the bloom has definitely gone from the Rose. Which is not exactly to say that he is unreliable but, like Xenophon, has his prejudices – many of which are political (Demosthenes and Kleon to name only two). Although an ardent imperialist, he decries the “demagogues” and low-lives that drive wars of hubristic expansion never once stopping to consider what he derived and accepted from the Pericles led imperium.

On other matters, the discussion could go on forever and I’m in no position to further it at the office outside of a couple of quick clarifications.

The ten “advisors” are mentioned in the context of Agis’ return (5.67.4):

Quote:[…] and now made a law, hitherto unknown at Lacedaemon, attaching to him ten Spartans as counsellors, without whose consent he should have no power to lead an army out of the city.

Now, again, that can read in a couple of ways. It is plain silly to read it as if Agis had to go to these ten to get permission to lead an army “out of the city”. I read it that for him to do so these ten had to accompany him in the position of “advisors” given his just described dilatory performance in the field. If that is the case then they are with him on his next foray into the field: Mantinea. It is possible – only possible – that the “older” soldier who rebuked Agis for attempting to assault the allies in a fortified position was one of these. You’d expect an advisor to be an experienced hard-head.

As to Neodamondeis, I think they are first referred to at Mantinea by that term. I do not think the term is attested beforehand. References to “helots armed as hoplites” but not until Mantinea is there a “class” of infantry known as Neodamondeis. The two thousand you refer to are those that are assigned to Asia Minor after the war?

All of which is not to say that they did not already exist but, unless memory fails, Mantinea is the first time such are named.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#17
Paralus wrote:
Quote:As to Neodamondeis, I think they are first referred to at Mantinea by that term. I do not think the term is attested beforehand. References to “helots armed as hoplites” but not until Mantinea is there a “class” of infantry known as Neodamondeis. The two thousand you refer to are those that are assigned to Asia Minor after the war?

All of which is not to say that they did not already exist but, unless memory fails, Mantinea is the first time such are named.

....having the advantage of having Thucydides to hand, I can say that the first reference to 'neodamodeis' as such ( "new citizens"/freed Helots) is at Thuc.V.34, when he tells us that in 421 BC, Clearidas brings home the troops who had served Brasidas until his death, dollowing the peace treaty which resulted. These are freed, and join the already freed Helots ( neodamodeis), presumably those raised in 425, and settled with them at Lepreum, just over the Lakonian border in the territory of Elis.....
As to there being 2,000 'neodamodeis', that seems to be the number of 'Helot Hoplites' raised in 425 (Thuc, IV.80 ) and allegedly all murdered, which cannot be so since as we have seen they seem to have been subsequently settled at Lepreum( as set out above). In 418 a contingent of them fights alongside their fellows who served with Brasidas at Mantinea, as referred to in previous posts, and in 413, 600 of them are sent to Sicily (Thuc.VII.19) and in 412, 300 form an expeditionary force (Thuc VIII.8 ). Thibron takes 1,000 'noedamodeis' to Asia in the year 400 (Xen Hellenica III.1.4) and Agesilaus has 2000 with him in 396 ( Xen Hellenica III.4.2 ). In 394 these are all still in garrison in Asia (Ibid IV.25) or accompanying Agesilaus ( Ibid,III.15) . In 382, Eudamidas has an unspecified number with him ( Ibid, V.2.24 ).....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#18
I'm quite aware of the mentions of neodamodeis after Mantinea. They are a troop type which obviously burgeoned along with the demands of empire and declining Spartiate manpower - not to mention their "preferred" use by the Spartans for action beyond the Peloponnese.

Quote:....having the advantage of having Thucydides to hand, I can say that the first reference to 'neodamodeis' as such ( "new citizens"/freed Helots) is at Thuc.V.34, when he tells us that in 421 BC, Clearidas brings home the troops who had served Brasidas until his death, dollowing the peace treaty which resulted. These are freed, and join the already freed Helots ( neodamodeis), presumably those raised in 425, and settled with them at Lepreum, just over the Lakonian border in the territory of Elis.....

Yes indeed! The garrison troops of the Spartans’ version of Alexandria-Eschate. Clearly I’d forgotten that one. The mention creates a conundrum in that were the neodamodeis available – as units in the manner in which they are used at Mantinea and afterward – there is likely no need to raise 700 helots who are promised “freedom” should they serve with Brasidas. Also, we have the description of Brasidas’ returnees being voted (the “Spartans’ decreed) to be “freed” and then settled at the outpost. Some freedom…


Quote:As to there being 2,000 'neodamodeis', that seems to be the number of 'Helot Hoplites' raised in 425 (Thuc, IV.80 ) and allegedly all murdered, which cannot be so since as we have seen they seem to have been subsequently settled at Lepreum( as set out above).

The origin of these neodamodeis is thoroughly unclear. We are told the 2,000 are murdered. I agree that this suits the Spartan image as ruthlessly dealing with their serfs and is likely exaggerated. Where I’d differ is that these helots have already performed services in war and they are still helots. Perhaps not all were murdered but the description is given in a context where the Spartans have lost Pylos and so is in 424 and in reaction to possible revolts following Athenian raids into Laconia. This is about the time that Brasidas is to go to Thrace and is raising forces. One might suggest that any survivors will have been given to him? As well there is the possibility that some of these are those who won their freedom taking food to Sphacteria.

Also the narrative of Thucydides repeatedly draws distinctions between helots armed for war and neodamodeis – as your example of 7.19.3 clearly illustrates.

Christian / Kineas raised the notion that many see Thucydides as a “veteran hoplite” and that this might not be true. I agree here too, though with the proviso that there is the argument that his description of the campaign of Samos speaks to an eye-witness. Certainly Xenophon was – a “veteran hoplite” that is (even if he made certain to have his horse nearby). Either way both wrote for an audience that likely did not include the average Athenian rower. They wrote for the literate and that meant, by and large, the more “wealthy” and educated class. Thus they wrote for trierachs, “taxiarchs”, those that debated philosophy and, therefore, more than the odd hoplite. For this audience Xenophon felt no need to fully detail military hierarchy or, more importantly, changes to same. Thucydides, although writing “for the ages”, certainly did not have in mind the 21st century. Although he sometimes explains matters a little more, he too expected his audience to understand much.

Xenophon does elect, on occasion, to illustrate matters a little better as his description of Koronea shows. This, though, because it stood out as different to what his readers expected of the average hoplite clash. In the same way he mentions the (growing) proclivity for Theban depth.
A pity he didn’t feel he was writing for the ages…

Quote: Thucydides himself hints at same with his description of the Lacedaemonians taken at Sphacteria (Periocoi brigaded with homoioi)....er, no, actually - there is NO mention of Perioikoi IIRC. Thucydides simply says "Altogether 440 Hoplites had crossed over, and of these 292 were taken alive to Athens.....About 120 of the prisoners were of the Spartan Officer class (Homioi)"; the remainder will have been 'other' Spartans, for they are drawn 'by lot from all the lochoi' (Thuc IV.8.9),

Quote:Thuc. 4.8.1
On the return of the Peloponnesians from Attica the Spartans themselves and the nearest of the Perioeci at once set out for Pylos, the other Lacedaemonians following more slowly as they had just come in from another campaign...

Clearly Pereoici were taken with "the Spartans themselves". Thucydides later draws a distinction between heolt "batmen" and the other hoplites caught with the homoioi on the island.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#19
Quote:Christian / Kineas raised the notion that many see Thucydides as a “veteran hoplite” and that this might not be true. I agree here too, though with the proviso that there is the argument that his description of the campaign of Samos speaks to an eye-witness. Certainly Xenophon was – a “veteran hoplite” that is (even if he made certain to have his horse nearby). Either way both wrote for an audience that likely did not include the average Athenian rower. They wrote for the literate and that meant, by and large, the more “wealthy” and educated class. Thus they wrote for trierachs, “taxiarchs”, those that debated philosophy and, therefore, more than the odd hoplite. For this audience Xenophon felt no need to fully detail military hierarchy or, more importantly, changes to same. Thucydides, although writing “for the ages”, certainly did not have in mind the 21st century. Although he sometimes explains matters a little more, he too expected his audience to understand much.

No argument there--complete agreement, in fact. In general, I prefer Xenophon to another source, if the subject is war. Nor would I quibble that Thucydides had seen service--but we ALL know the Victorian stock character of Colonel Blimp, who's been places and knows nothing. Limited military service wouldn't necessarily make a man "expert." Xenophon, it seems to me, was an expert.

That said, one of the things I truly like about Cartledge's brief article is that he's willing to accept that each of the Historians understood part of a changeing system--that there's more truth than falsehood in each writer. Herodotus, for instance, names his source--the Spartiate Archias--one of only three individual sources that Herodotus names in the course of a zillion pages of the History. He also indicates that he personally visited Sparta.
I'll sum up Cartledge's argument. He argues that Herodotus had a source, a Spartiate, named Archias, who was of the village of Pitana, one of the "original" four villages that constituted 'Sparta." Later, Herodotus refers, in the Battle of Plataea, to a "Pitanate Lokhos" (9.53.2). Thucydides "pours scorn" on this notion (1.20.3) and his scorn for Herodotus's lack of knowledge about Sparta is the cornerstone of the Victorian preference for "modern" Thucydides over that rotten socialist, Herodotus...
What Thucydides mistook was that Spartan traditions were "ancient." (See 5.75.2). Like most ultra-conservative states, Sparta seems to have claimed that all their laws and customs were ancient, but even we amateurs can see that there was immense change in the Spartan military structure from 550 to 350.
Cartledge goes on to suppose that the Lokhos gave way to the Mora--neither was a subunit of another, but the Lokhos represents another system entirely, and that there was a major reform between Plataea and the Peloponessian Wars. Cartledge theorizes that the reform was a result of a manpower crisis, possibly as late as the 440s, and represented the first formal inclusion of Periokoi hoplites in the Spartan phalanx, directly, rather than in their own separate organizations.
I find this interesting, as the current academic view does seem to be that Sparta had a major manpower crisis, possibly as a result of the earthquakes and Helot revolts of the 460s, that led them to undertake emergency measures and new laws. This would be a fascinating revision of history, if accurate--after all, it would suddenly cast Sparta as the underdog rather than the ancient military power in the looming contest with Athens. it would suggest, if true, that it was not plucky Athens deciding to resist Spartan hegemony, but perhaps plucky Sparta throwing the dice against the encroachment of mighty Athens...
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
Reply
#20
Quote:it would suggest, if true, that it was not plucky Athens deciding to resist Spartan hegemony, but perhaps plucky Sparta throwing the dice against the encroachment of mighty Athens...
I thought that was the common notion!It is even Pericles who suggests that it is Athenians themselves that provoked Sparta with their Hegemony and their power.
It is made clear in Thucydides that Sparta had more man power in land,together with better quality,but it is also clear that Athens wasn't touched to a great extend by it. Again Pericles is put to speak in his "Epitaphios" as if Athens is so powerful that mere old style hoplites can't really harm her.
In much of the war Sparta and her allies are presented struggling to catch up with Athen's actions. And of course we don't even mention resources!
I won't elaborate more,since i am a bit off topic,but Sparta was indeed reacting to Athens' overgrowing power.it wasn't that powerful Sparta wasn't letting Athens reach its own level.
Another fact is that it is by far more the Athenian hoplites who are operating in the war than Lakedaemonian ones.
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#21
Quote:I find this interesting, as the current academic view does seem to be that Sparta had a major manpower crisis, possibly as a result of the earthquakes and Helot revolts of the 460s, that led them to undertake emergency measures and new laws. This would be a fascinating revision of history, if accurate--after all, it would suddenly cast Sparta as the underdog rather than the ancient military power in the looming contest with Athens. it would suggest, if true, that it was not plucky Athens deciding to resist Spartan hegemony, but perhaps plucky Sparta throwing the dice against the encroachment of mighty Athens...

I'm with Giannis: I too thought this the norm - then perhaps I should cease seeing what I think as the norm?!

The evidence is patchy but it does suggest that Sparta will have faced difficulties. The call for help in the wake of the 'quake indicates distress - particularly for a supposed "secretive" state; the dismissal of the Athenians as well. Just how the event effected manpower is difficult to know. During the "revolt" of Naxos (or was it Thasos?) it is recorded that Sparta was entertaining notions of supporting the rebels until the 'quake. A matter of years later Sparta musters a rather large army - especially for an operation beyond the Isthmus - and battles Athens to a standstill at Tanagra. Then Sparta, seemingly uninterested, turned back Persian silver to engage Athens as she aided the regular Egyptian revolt.

The willingness to send "1,500 hoplites of their own" beyond the Isthmus might indicate a roll call of some 6,000 or more you'd think.

Still on land, against the "full" levy of the Peloponnesian League, Athens is justly described as "plucky". I doubt Athens, minus a land empire or firm allies in that sphere, was ever in the position to take on the League. In fact it a stark example of Alcibiades' twisted abilities that he arranged for the alliance of 419-18 to do that fighting on Athens' behalf (so to speak). The same might be observed for the League taking on the Athenian Empire's naval might inyil, that is, Persian "darics" were procurred to buy fleets.

Just how the Spartan military organisation changed is largely beyond recovery and left to theorising. I don't doubt that it did change: a quick scan of the Hellenica turns up not a single reference to "mora" after Leuctra. In every instance I've found that describes the Lacedaemonian army (7.1.30; 4.20; 5.10) the only unit mentioned is the lochos (the number of which is twelve). There surely is a reason that "mora" (often mentioned beforehand) is now gone from the pages of Xenophon's history.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#22
Kineas/Christian wrote:
Quote:That said, one of the things I truly like about Cartledge's brief article is that he's willing to accept that each of the Historians understood part of a changeing system--......What Thucydides mistook was that Spartan traditions were "ancient." (See 5.75.2). Like most ultra-conservative states, Sparta seems to have claimed that all their laws and customs were ancient, but even we amateurs can see that there was immense change in the Spartan military structure from 550 to 350.......Cartledge goes on to suppose that the Lokhos gave way to the Mora--neither was a subunit of another, but the Lokhos represents another system entirely, and that there was a major reform between Plataea and the Peloponessian Wars. Cartledge theorizes that the reform was a result of a manpower crisis, possibly as late as the 440s, and represented the first formal inclusion of Periokoi hoplites in the Spartan phalanx, directly, rather than in their own separate organizations.

Giannis wrote:
Quote:I thought that was the common notion!

Cartledge's views do represent "the common notion" - that Sparta's Hoplite organisation changed from 'lochoi' to 'Morai' and back to 'lochoi' again, that the earthquake in the 460's devastated Sparta's manpower, especially the 'Homioi' etc......but in my opinion, and others, such a view is now largely discredited, because the evidence (which of course can be interpreted in various ways) does not really support this view, which is somewhat superficial.
Now, one would need to write a book ( and many have ! )to fully set out why this should be so, or not so, and the subject cannot be fully argued on a forum such as this. However I will set out some of the reasons for thinking that 'Spartan' (but not Homioi) manpower did not significantly change, and that the six ‘Morai’ (lit:divisions) existed throughout this period.

In an earlier post, I explained why it was highly unlikely, if not impossible for the Spartan Army to ever have been organised into 5 units based on Oba.

The evidence does suggest that from an early time, three ‘Phyles’ ( clans; groups; peoples) named Hylleis, Dymanes and Pamphyloi ( mentioned by the poet Tyrtaeus for example, and Pindar implies they still existed into the 5 C BC ( Pythian I.120 fwd)
At some time early on, these ‘phyles’ were “divided” into two divisions ( ‘Morai ‘ lit: divisions) and certainly the Spartans themselves believed the six ‘Morai’ went back to ancient times, ascribing their creation to the mythical Lawgiver, Lycurgus ( Xen: Lac. Constitution XI.4)

There is nothing in Herodotus which is inconsistent with this organisation into Morai, Lochoi, Pentekostyes and Enomotia, even if Herodotus, like Thucydides does not use the word ‘Mora’, but there are only two passages where he gives details of organisation. He does however describe Amompheratus’ behaviour at Plataea as in contrast to “the other taxiarchoi” ( Herodotus IX.53.2 ). Even though he calls his unit a ‘lochos’, an Athenian ‘Taxiarch’ was the equivalent of the Spartan ‘Polemarch’ – who commanded a ‘Mora’. Herodotus even uses the word ‘Polemarch’ – he refers to Euainetos, the Spartan Commander at Tempe in 480 as “chosen from the Polemarchs” (VII.173.2). Herodotus too ascribes the creation of the ‘enomotia’ to Lycurgus i.e. it was already an ancient institution. Herodotus 5,000 Spartans at Plataea will have been the 6 ‘Morai’ with 25 age classes called up. On several occasions we hear of Spartan forces of 300, which are readily formed by choosing by lot one ‘enomotia’ ( 25 strong) from each of the 12 ‘lochoi’. Finally, Herodotus has exiled King Demaratus tell Xerxes that there were 8,000 men in the Spartan Army (Her. VII.234.2). Six ‘Morai’ at full strength ( all age classes called up) consists of 6 x 1280 = 7680, plus the 300 ‘Hippeis’ gives a total of 7,980 in the Spartan Army.

We have seen already that Thucydides must be wrong about Spartan numbers at First Mantinea ( almost all commentators agree on this), and that in all likelihood the Army there consisted of six ‘Morai’, consisting of 12 ‘lochoi’, with 2 more ‘lochoi’ of freed Helots – the ‘Brasideoi’ and ‘Neodamodeis’ amounting to a seventh ‘Mora’, and this essentially same Army continues through Xenophon, until the last chapter (VII) when three times, Xenophon casually refers to ‘Lochoi’.
Paralus wrote:
Quote:In every instance I've found that describes the Lacedaemonian army (7.1.30; 4.20; 5.10) the only unit mentioned is the lochos (the number of which is twelve). There surely is a reason that "mora" (often mentioned beforehand) is now gone from the pages of Xenophon's history.
At 1.30, King Archidamos is walking along the front of the Army, addressing the troops, presumably Lochos by Lochos ( his voice not carrying to address any larger body), as Toynbee suggests. The two other instances both refer to the same fact, namely that 3 of the 12 Lochoi are elswhere, and Toynbee suggests that it is simpler to say " 3 of the twelve lochoi" than " A mora and a half", while noting that elsewhere (IV.3.15) Xenophon does say "half a Mora".But as Lazenby has pointed out, "Half a Mora" need not be the same thing as a 'lochos'. Further, in book VII, Xenophon refers to Polemarchs - commanders of 'Morai' ( VII.1.17 and 25) clearly implying the continued existence of the six 'Morai'.
Paralus wrote:
Quote:Thuc. 4.8.1
On the return of the Peloponnesians from Attica the Spartans themselves and the nearest of the Perioeci at once set out for Pylos, the other Lacedaemonians following more slowly as they had just come in from another campaign...

Clearly Pereoici were taken with "the Spartans themselves". Thucydides later draws a distinction between heolt "batmen" and the other hoplites caught with the homoioi on the island

This is very doubtful to say the least. Despite Toynbee's hypothesis that one of the 'lochoi' in the 'Mora' was of 'perioikoi', there are many good reasons for thinking that they did not serve in 'Spartan' units- the six 'Morai'. As I pointed out previously, there is no mention of them in connection with Sphacteria. The quote from Thucydides you refer to is in connection with Pylos, captured by the Athenians and under siege by the Lakedaemonians. That all the prisoners were 'Spartans' if not 'Homioi' is implied by the extreme anxiety of Sparta to get them back. Furthermore, the garrison numbered "420 Hoplites with Helots to attend on them" (Thuc IV.8.9 and IV.16.1 describing their rations). 'Perioikoi' did not have Helots, so far as we know.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#23
Quote: Paralus wrote:
Quote:Thuc. 4.8.1
On the return of the Peloponnesians from Attica the Spartans themselves and the nearest of the Perioeci at once set out for Pylos, the other Lacedaemonians following more slowly as they had just come in from another campaign...

Clearly Pereoici were taken with "the Spartans themselves". Thucydides later draws a distinction between heolt "batmen" and the other hoplites caught with the homoioi on the island

This is very doubtful to say the least. Despite Toynbee's hypothesis that one of the 'lochoi' in the 'Mora' was of 'perioikoi', there are many good reasons for thinking that they did not serve in 'Spartan' units- the six 'Morai'. As I pointed out previously, there is no mention of them in connection with Sphacteria. The quote from Thucydides you refer to is in connection with Pylos, captured by the Athenians and under siege by the Lakedaemonians.

Now there’s a baldly stated contrary view! Let’s see, taking the respondent’s advice to more closely read Thucydides…
  • * This is very doubtful to say the least - Not at all! (you'd expect nothing less)
    * The quote from Thucydides you refer to is in connection with Pylos - Wrong I'm afraid.
    * As I pointed out previously, there is no mention of them in connection with Sphacteria - Not direct - there never is.

The text clearly states that the “Spartans themselves and the nearest of the Perioeci” set out at once for Pylos. These are those not already abroad in Attica (who’ve just returned and are to follow later). There seems nothing doubtful about the presence of perioeci in this initial force.

Having departed in a hurry they arrive and immediately make plans to invest Pylos by both land and sea (4.8.1.4). At the same time they plan to block the harbour entrances with ships (when they arrive) and, in the “meanwhile, fearing that the enemy might make use of the island to operate against them, carried over some heavy infantry thither, stationing others along the coast”. Having determined this course of action they then select “from all the lochoi” the companies to send to the Island.

This, one should note, was before any attack had been mounted upon Pylos by the Spartans. It is, therefore, a reasonable assumption that perioeci were a part of those initial heavy infantry (420) that had been sent across or any others that were to follow.

Quote: That all the prisoners were 'Spartans' if not 'Homioi' is implied by the extreme anxiety of Sparta to get them back. Furthermore, the garrison numbered "420 Hoplites with Helots to attend on them" (Thuc IV.8.9 and IV.16.1 describing their rations). 'Perioikoi' did not have Helots, so far as we know.

The measures taken by Sparta to retrieve the surviving 120 “officer” class men indicates the fragility of homoioi numbers.

The number of helots is not recorded. It is certain that the detailed numbers (the 120 of the “officer class”) found its way to Thucydides after they had been imprisoned in Athens. Whilst he then knew the numbers of the survivors his numbers (or their breakdown) for the original force were simply a total (Thucydides not having the component numbers).
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#24
Quote: The two other instances both refer to the same fact, namely that 3 of the 12 Lochoi are elswhere, and Toynbee suggests that it is simpler to say " 3 of the twelve lochoi" than " A mora and a half", while noting that elsewhere (IV.3.15) Xenophon does say "half a Mora".But as Lazenby has pointed out, "Half a Mora" need not be the same thing as a 'lochos'. Further, in book VII, Xenophon refers to Polemarchs - commanders of 'Morai' ( VII.1.17 and 25) clearly implying the continued existence of the six 'Morai'.

Firstly one might note the possibility that the army had, in fact, halved - going by your reference to Xen. Lac Pol 11.4:

Quote:The men so equipped were divided into six regiments (mora) of cavalry and infantry. The officers of each citizen regiment (mora) comprise one colonel (polemarch) , four captains (lochagous tettaras), eight first lieutenants (pentêkontêras oktô) and sixteen second lieutenants (enômotarchous hekkaideka).

Secondly, if the above is true, there has been a chage in the Spartan army organisation. There is, then, the possibility that, post Leuktra, the largest "division" of that army was now the lochos; the titles remaining.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#25
Kineas is right.
Sparta might have been weaker and knew it too - if we accept Archidamus restraining speech as given by Thukidides.

The root "LOCH" I use "CH" as strong "H".
"locheia" state of lying down. It is used up to day both in common speech and medical document to describe awomans recovery period after childbirth. The other word is "lechomai" = to lie down on something
Since to ambush you usually crawl or lay down the verb "elocheuo" (e-LOCH-euo)is used both in comon speech and all oficial documents

Homer uses the term "lochos" both ans ambush and unit. Homeric dscriptions of commando/hunting stories involve pairs or small groups, not units of 400 to 1000 men.

Herodotus is asumed to be of a hoplite urban class but nothing tell us he had military experince.
He was a Doric speakin refugee from Halicarnassos (Doric Hexapolis) from Perisian controlled areas trying to imitate "attik" manerisms.

Xenophon actually saw action and knew his staff better and understood units and subunits (Anabasis). From Xenophon to our days a lochos is a unit composed from 100 to 250 men maximum and that is what a greek speaker understands. The term "hieros lochos" was given only to Thebes or Argos elite hoplite formations and it was a traditionalims from the "very early days" where the cities initially had trouble forming 100 to 300 hoplites for battle.

Armies are "beasts of habit and traditon". This is something that we see even today. The most rational thing is that lochos as Xenophon and most Greeks understand appeared earlier than the 5th/4th centuries B.C.

Based on "hieroi lochoi" and the mixing of words vs meanings on Herodotus and sometimes Thukidides many scholars -most of them know armies-from books and movies stick to Lexikons and words appearences and will tell you that lochos at times describes aunit of 600 men an it evolved to the 100-200 men lochos of Xenophon. No such thing.

Naturally scholars entitled to their opinions and the unrestricted publication of them even ot he point of being misled and mislead others

Kind regards

P.S.
The term captain for lochagos comes form the Byzantine "Katepano" because westrn thems rarely could produce 100 horsmen (only those counted as soldiers in the 11th century A.D.) and naturaly the the Katepano - Kapitano- Captain camr later to be considered a company leader
Reply
#26
Quote:The term captain for lochagos comes form the Byzantine "Katepano" because westrn thems rarely could produce 100 horsmen (only those counted as soldiers in the 11th century A.D.) and naturaly the the Katepano - Kapitano- Captain camr later to be considered a company leader

Nice tidbit, Stephanos! I came to the same conclusion when I was doing my degree--always a pleasure to find some agreement!
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
Reply
#27
As to my previous post any forum members who have "walked the beat" will relate more easily even if the disagree than those who are exclusively scolarly.

In the old days a historical conclusion was reached only by literary studies and later by archaeology but in our times chemistry, physics, pchychology and sciences studing behavioural patterns and social evolution cme to chalenge established views. Suida lexicon does not have all the answers anymore

Kind regards
Reply
#28
Paralus wrote:
Quote:The text clearly states that the “Spartans themselves and the nearest of the Perioeci” set out at once for Pylos. These are those not already abroad in Attica (who’ve just returned and are to follow later). There seems nothing doubtful about the presence of perioeci in this initial force. ...not disputed at all.The whole Lakedaemonian Army was eventually present - the phrase "drawn from all the lochoi" clearly indicates that the six Spartan 'Morai'/12 'Lochoi' were all present following their brief 15 day foray into Attica. That the 'Perioikoi' were also present in force is also undoubted ( Diodorus[XII.61.2] records the total number of troops eventually present as 12,000 - six 'Morai' of Spartans with all 35 age classes called up will have numbered 6,720 on paper, plus a roughly equal number of 'Perioikoi', though I suspect that some of the Spartan troops, perhaps the oldest and youngest age-classes, may have stayed in Sparta.

Having departed in a hurry they arrive and immediately make plans to invest Pylos by both land and sea (4.8.1.4). At the same time they plan to block the harbour entrances with ships (when they arrive) and, in the “meanwhile, fearing that the enemy might make use of the island to operate against them, carried over some heavy infantry thither, stationing others along the coast”. Having determined this course of action they then select “from all the lochoi” the companies to send to the Island. The selection is best understood as being one enomotia drawn by lot from each of the 12 Lochoi i.e. 12x35=420This, one should note, was before any attack had been mounted upon Pylos by the Spartans. It is, therefore, a reasonable assumption that perioeci were a part of those initial heavy infantry (420) that had been sent across or any others that were to follow.
Thucydides wrote:
Quote:Having decided on this plan, they sent the hoplites across to the island, choosing the men by lot from all the lochoi'. Various parties had been across, done their spell of duty, and been relieved: the last of these forces to cross, and the one that was caught there, numbered 420 hoplites, with helots to attend on them.
Thucydides then goes on to describe the attacks on Pylos by the Lakedaemonian Army, and the subsequent Athenian victory, leaving the 420 and their helots stranded on Sphacteria. Then there is a truce, while peace talks take place in Athens, but terms cannot be agreed and the armistice ends. The trapped Spartans are now besieged, but supplies are smuggled through. Only then do Demosthenes and Cleon attack the island. It is quite clear that the last force/garrison of 420 are not drawn from the "initial" force which invests Pylos, as I said ! Smile D


The measures taken by Sparta to retrieve the surviving 120 “officer” class men indicates the fragility of homoioi numbers.Agreed - but assuming the others were also Spartans would give them even more cause to try to recover them

The number of helots is not recorded. It is certain that the detailed numbers (the 120 of the “officer class”) found its way to Thucydides after they had been imprisoned in Athens. Whilst he then knew the numbers of the survivors his numbers (or their breakdown) for the original force were simply a total (Thucydides not having the component numbers).
Actually, Thucydides says "about 120 of the prisoners were 'Homioi'" - which implies the Athenians could not tell exactly who was who among the prisoners and had to estimate, as does the jibe thrown at them that the "best and bravest" ( i.e. the 'Homioi') were among the dead - re-inforcing the idea that all were Spartans, and no 'perioikoi were present.

In summary then, the following factors point toward the final force on Sphacteria being 'all-Spartan' :
*The size of the final force, drawn from "all the lochoi" is 12 (lochoi) x 35 (men per enomotia)= 420
* The force is accompanied by Helots ( which are exclusive to Spartans)
* The Athenians seem not to be able to distinguish 'Homioi' from the rest of the prisoners
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#29
Paralus wrote:
Quote:Firstly one might note the possibility that the army had, in fact, halved - going by your reference to Xen. Lac Pol 11.4:

The men so equipped were divided into six regiments (mora) of cavalry and infantry. The officers of each citizen regiment (mora) comprise one colonel (polemarch) , four captains (lochagous tettaras), eight first lieutenants (pentêkontêras oktô) and sixteen second lieutenants (enômotarchous hekkaideka).

Secondly, if the above is true, there has been a chage in the Spartan army organisation. There is, then, the possibility that, post Leuktra, the largest "division" of that army was now the lochos; the titles remaining.

To address your first point, the proponents of this theory must come up with a plausible reason for a sudden "halving" of numbers in the Spartan Army after Leuktra, which after all was more a bloody draw than a decisive victory, even if the Spartans did formally concede. The six 'Morai' plus the 'Hippeis' had numbered potentially almost 8,000 men with all age classes called up. The 'Hippeis' and four 'Morai' had taken part in Leuktra, and Xenophon tells us that there were slightly less than a thousand casualties in the whole army ( though admittedly the Allies took little part, apparently), and that of these 400 were 'Homioi', most of whom will have been the 'Hippeis'. The loss among 'Homioi', particularly young ones, was severe, but not the Army as a whole. The 600 or so 'hypomeiones'/inferiors could no doubt be readily replaced, and there would have been 'Homioi' coming of age, and others would have been replaced by 'Hypomeiones' inheriting 'Kleroi/estates'......... So what has happened to the other 3,000 or more 'losses' necessary to "halve the Army" ?

Further, many commentators believe there is a corruption of the text in this passage of the 'Constitution' and that for example a copyist has read "duo" (two) as "d' " (four)... an emendation of the text to "duo" gives us a total of twelve 'Lochoi', consistent with Xenophon elsewhere.

As to changes to Spartan organisation, the proponents of the "5 Lochoi, then 6 Lochoi, then 6 Morai, then 12 lochoi" school would have all these fundamental organisational changes in a space of 100 years, and would also ( fatally to their argument in my view) postulate that Imperial Sparta at the height of her power, had only available an army of some 4,000 or so men, at a time when Argos could field 7,000 Hoplites and even the island of Euboea 3,000.

Plutarch refers to the fact ( in his Pelopidas) that Kallisthenes and Polybius both referred to 'Morai", and of course both wrote well after Leuktra, though we don't know the exact context, but Kallisthenes will have been writing of the Spartans resisting Alexander and Polybius was probably writing about the third century, prior to Cleomenes III's reform into a Macedonian phalanx and 'tagmata'. That would mean yet another change - back to 'Morai' again, after Xenophon's time !!

While there was certainly change in the Spartan army in this period - in equipment, in the number of 'Homioi' it contained etc; and like other Greek states, the adoption of mercenaries ( and in impoverished Sparta, the substitution of cheaper Helot Hoplites at times), peltasts, archers, slingers and cavalry, I , and others, think that the basic Hoplite Phalanx organisation did NOT change ( why should it after all ?.....A Phalanx is a Phalanx is a Phalanx - and we don't hear of other Greek states changing their fundamental Phalanx organisation either.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#30
Stefanos wrote:
Quote:Xenophon actually saw action and knew his staff better and understood units and subunits (Anabasis). From Xenophon to our days a lochos is a unit composed from 100 to 250 men maximum and that is what a greek speaker understands.......Armies are "beasts of habit and traditon". This is something that we see even today. The most rational thing is that lochos as Xenophon and most Greeks understand appeared earlier than the 5th/4th centuries B.C.

...I would agree with you that lexica cannot be taken as gospel, and that, for example much has been learnt in the last 100 years or so which should "update" them. ( e.g. the now infamous Loeb mistranslation of 'longchophoroi' as 'pikemen' based on an incorrect lexicon entry).

However, you seem to be saying in the quotation above that 'lochos' in the 5 C BC is a unit "composed from 100 to 250 men maximum" yet, as we have seen in this thread Thucydides, who was a 'strategos'/general in 424 BC ( and so "walked the beat" as you put it ) tells us plainly that a Spartan 'Lochos' numbered 512 at first Mantinea.We have also seen that if all age classes were called out, a Spartan 'Lochos' numbered 640.....
"Lochos", like the English word 'company' ,can be of indeterminate size and in the 5th/4th centuries it was most assuredly not limited to a maximum of 250 men.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Plataea 2021 List of Research Topics Sean Manning 13 3,033 01-20-2022, 08:13 PM
Last Post: Sean Manning
  The Strength and Organization of the Persian Army at Plataea Sean Manning 16 6,977 07-18-2012, 08:01 PM
Last Post: Sean Manning
  Battle of Plataea hoplite07 14 3,719 08-07-2007, 12:32 AM
Last Post: Paullus Scipio

Forum Jump: