25. See A.Arnaud, 'Quelques aspects des rapports de la ruse et de la guerre dans le monde grec du VIIIe au Ve siècle' (3rd Cycle Thesis: Paris, 1971) 28–31.
26. H.van Wees, 'Kings in combat: battles and heroes in the Iliad,' CQ 38 (1988) 13–22.
27. Tac, Ger. 7.1–2: Reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt…. et duces exemplo potius quam imperio, si prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant admiratione praesunt. ceterum neque animadvertere neque vincire, ne verberare quidem nisi sacerdotibus permissum…quodque praecipuum fortitudinis incitamentum est, non casus nec fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum fecit sed familiae et propinquitates. Cf. Ger. 13–14 and Thompson in n. 23 supra.
28. T.S.Burns, 'The Barbarians and the Scriptores Historiae Augustae,' in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Collection Latomus 164: Brussels, 1979) I, 524–5; van Wees (supra n. 26) 18–22. Cf. Tac., Ger. 14–15.
29. King (supra n. 2) 3–4; van Wees (supra n. 26) 19–20.
30. Pritchett, War 4. 7–33; similar views in F.Albracht, Kampf und
Kampfschilderung bei Homer (Naumburg, 1886); A.Lang, The World of Homer (London, 1910) 54–59; Lammert/Lammert 1921:436–45; Lammert 1938:1625–7; Kromayer and Veith 1928:26; Detienne, in Vernant 1968:138 n. 101. Cf. Latacz 1977:26–44 for additional bibliography.
31. Van Wees 1986:285–303 and (supra n. 26) 1–24. Cf. Hanson 1989:41; R.Leimbach, review of Latacz, Gnomon 52 (1980) 418–25: no coherent, unified picture of Homeric combat possible; Snodgrass 1964b: 176–9: no phalanx in Homer.
32. Van Wees 1986:285–92 and (supra n. 26) 13–14.
33. Van Wees (supra n. 26) 10–11; cf. Latacz 1977:170–8.
34. Caes., BG 1.24.5, 5.2.4–5; cf. Liv. 32.17.11; G.Gundal, 'Der Keil in der germanischen Feldschlacht,' Gymnasium 50 (1939) 154–65; cf. Thompson (supra n. 23) 114.
35. Cf. Eust. ad Il. 4.250ff and Didymus schol. in Il. 3.136, where definite sizes are assigned to these units; Pritchett, War 4.22; Lammert/ Lammert 1921:436–41; Lammert 1938:1626. That later Greeks (Polyb. 12.21.8; Diod. 16.3.2; Arist., fr. 152 Rose) conceived Homeric warfare in terms of the hoplite phalanx of their own time does not offer proof (so Pritchett, War 4. 24–5) that Homer described the hoplite phalanx. These later Greeks display the influence of the sophists' view of Homer the military expert; Aristotle's Homeric Problems, which included commentary on military questions (see Wheeler in n. 12 supra), and similar Peripatetic works in this genre probably originated some of the curious material in Eustathius and other commentators. Likewise, Xenophon's use of hoplites (the standard classical Greek term for a heavy infantryman) in reference to non-Greek heavy infantry does not prove the non-existence of a pre-hoplite phase of Greek warfare (so Pritchett, War 4.11). The word is not attested before the late sixth or early fifth century: Snodgrass 1964b:204.
36. Cf. Tac, Ger. 14.1: Cum ventum in aciem, turpe principi virtute vinci, turpe comitatui virtutem principis non adaequare. Van Wees ((supra n. 26) 5 with n. 18,12 n. 40) correctly rejects Pritchett's concept of duels in Homeric battles and his view of the promachoi as a forward echelon unit (War 4. 21–6). Monomachia of commanders or champions, as Pritchett's own catalog of examples shows, generally occurs as a substitute for an engagement of all forces. The term monomachia in classical Greek and Hellenistic historians for the occasional confrontation of opposing generals is no doubt used to recall the heroic duels of epic, although the word monomachia and its variants do not occur before Herodotus: LSJ9 svv.; Pritchett, War 4.19–20 nos. 13–14, 16–17.
37. See nn. 27–9 supra. Military service, the impôt de sang, remained an aristocratic argument for privileges until the French Revolution: A. Vagts, A History of Militarism (New York, 1959) 57. On Pindar see Jaeger (supra n. 6) 214–16. Latacz (1977:43–59) correctly argues that promachos and promachesthai do not indicate social rank. Contra Pritchett, War 4.26 n. 83; van Wees (supra n. 26) 18–22, although he concedes (21 nn. 68–9) that all aristoi in battle are not basileis.
38. Tac., Ger. 13.2: insignis nobilitas aut magna patrum merita principis dignitatem etiam adulescentulis adsignant.
39. Il. 11.61–6, 163–71, 284–99; 12.86–7, 437–71. Cf. Latacz 1977:175–8.
40. King (supra n. 2) 248 n. 11. Nestor's deployment of suspected cowards between reliable troops and his other tactical instructions at Il. 4.297–309 could also be cited as early evidence of battle management. The frequent citation of this passage in later sources indicates its use in Homeric Tactica: n. 12 supra; Xen., Mem. 3.1.8, Cyr. 7.5.5, cf. 3.3.41; Arist., fr. 152 Rose; Pyrrhus, Tactica, in Front., Strat. 2.3.21; Amm. 24.6.9.
41. On the hoplite panoply see Snodgrass 1964b: esp. 61–7 and 1967:53–5 on the hoplon; also Hanson 1989:55–88, esp. 63–71, and essays in Part II of this volume.
42. Perfection of the phalanx or sudden creation: Latacz 1977:237–8; Cartledge 1977:11–27; Lorimer 1947:76–138; cf. Salmon 1977:87–122; outcome of experimentation: Snodgrass 1965:110–22 and Archaic Greece: the Age of Experiment (London, 1980) 104–6. For Pritchett (War 4.7–44), who finds a disciplined fully organized phalanx in Homer, changes in Greek armor had no effect.
43. Snodgrass 1964b:179–83, 1965:116, 1967:61–7 and supra n. 42:104–6; Latacz 1977:229–37 with M.L.West's review, CR 29 (1979) 135–6; van Wees (1986) 302; contra Pritchett, War 4.33–42; Cartledge 1977:11–27; Lazenby 1985:76–7 (apparently unaware of Latacz's book). Latacz 1977:233 denies use of the hoplite shield in Tyrtaeus, based on fr.11.23–4 West (the shield covers both shoulders, whereas the hoplon protected only one), but he places too much weight on a poetic plural.
44. Tyrtaeus (ed. West) fr.11.35–8,19.1–9 with Pritchett, War 4. 38; P.Oxy. 3316.14; West (supra n. 43) 136; Kromayer and Veith 1928:80 n. 2.
45. Tyrtaeus (ed. West) 10–12,19.10–17; Pritchett, War 4. 39–41. Tyrtaeus reported that Spartan lack of discipline necessitated deployment before a trench to prohibit flight: Arist., EN 3.8.5 with anon, schol. in 3.8.11 (Comm. Arist. gr. 20, ed. Heylbut). Pausanias' account of the battle of the Great Trench (4.17.6–9) omits this aspect of the struggle.
46. Tyrtaeus (ed. West) fr.10.21–25, 11.23–4; Pritchett, War 4. 41, 43 with n. 142. I remain unconvinced by Pritchett's ingenious attempt to rehabilitate Pausanias' account of the Messenian wars (often thought to reflect Messenian propaganda of 370 BC and later) through topo-graphical study and arguments that Pausanias' narrative derives from Tyrtaeus: see Topography 5.1–68 and War 4.37–8,41,42 n. 135. Nor do I find compelling West's analysis of Tyrtaeus fr. 19: a change in perspective from marching to battle order occurs at 19–13. See West, ZPE 1 (1967) 174–6, followed by Pritchett, War 4.38, 41.
47. Snodgrass 1964b:181–2, 1967:61–7; contra Pritchett, War 4.40 n. 131. Cf. the insertion of files of psiloi between the hoplite files of the phalanx, called parentaxis in Asclep., Tact. 6.1 but entaxis in Ael., Tact. 31.3; Arr., Tact. 26.6. Lorimer (1947:127) has the gymnetes protect themselves with their own shields.
48. On othismos see Pritchett, War 4.65–76,91–2; Hanson 1989:28–9,169–77. Hanson ibid., 173 takes Tyrtaeus 11.21–2 as an illustration of
othismos, but I see here no evidence of collective pushing by those behind the file leader, if files are meant at all. An attempt to argue that the phalanx was an open and not a closed formation is totally misguided: Cawkwell 1978:150–3 and 'Orthodoxy and hoplites,' CQ 39 (1989) 379–83 (the latter written without reference to Wheeler 1979, 1982, 1983; Krentz 1985a:50–61. Contra Holladay 1982:94–7; Anderson 1984:152).
49. Chigi vase: Lorimer 1947:81 fig. 2; H.Payne, Neocorinthia (Oxford, 1931) 32, 301 no. A-3; D.A.Amyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period (Berkeley, 1988) II, 369: a date of ca 640BC. Despite arguments concerning the technical inability of vase painters to depict a phalanx, a rigorous methodology requires evaluation of what the evidence actually shows, not what we conjecture a painter had in mind. Furthermore, Tyrtaeus (11.11–14 West) does refer to men in the rear, as Hanson (1989:168) notes, but just as on the Chigi vase no i
ndication is given that the second rank directly supports the first. In fact, laon opisso could refer to those behind the first rank of the formation or even men behind the formation possibly guarding the army's camp. Comparison of the Spartan flutists at Mantineia in 418 BC (Thuc. 5.70, cf. Plut., Lyc. 22.2–3) with those seen on the Chigi Vase and a proto-Corinthian aryballos from Perachora (Lorimer 1947:93 fig. 7: ca 675 BC) is too facile. Although the classical Spartan and other Greek phalanges marched in step and one tradition (Ath. 14.630e) credits Tyrtaeus with the composition of marching songs (enoplia), except for these vase paintings flutists and drill or cadenced marching in Greek forces of the seventh century is not attested. The function of the flutists in these vase paintings cannot be to ensure keeping in step. Cf. Snodgrass (supra n. 42) 106 against Salmon 1977:87–122. Also see Wheeler 1982:232–3 with n. 51. According to Greenhalgh 1973 many hoplites rode horses to battle and dismounted to form the phalanx.
50. See Arist., Pol. 5.5.6–8; A.Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (New York, 1963) 31–53, 66–77; Cartledge 1977:11–27 and Sparta and Laconia: a Regional History 1300–362 BC (London, 1979) 123–40; Salmon 1977 87–122; contra Snodgrass 1965:114–16, 120.
51. Lycurg, Leoc. 106–7; Polyaenus 1.17; Ath. 14.630e; cf. Hdt. 7.104.5, 9.48.1; Thuc. 4.40.1; Loraux (supra n. 20) 105–6. Lazenby (1985:83) sees this Spartan imperative as part of the 'Spartan mirage'—a myth created by the battle of Thermopylae.
52. Lammert 1899:10; cf. Wheeler 1979:305 with n. 7 on the Roman phalanx. The earliest epigraphical attestation of a soldier who died en promachois comes from the base of a sixth-century Attic kouros. This wealthy young Athenian (a poor family could not commission a kouros) possibly died in the front ranks at the battle of Pallene ca 540 BC. See Pritchett, War 4.88, cf. 39–41.
53. Thebes: Diod. 12.70.1; Lammert 1899:10 n. 1; Sparta: Lazenby 1985:11, 54–6; Athens: Arist., Ath. Pol. 7.3–4, cf. 4.3; Plut, Sol. 18.1–2; cf. Lammert 1899:2 n. 11. Aristotle (Pol. 4.3.3, 13.10–11, cf. 6.7.1–3) associated cavalry with the aristocracies of the Archaic period. On epilektoi see n. 20 supra. Diodorus' identification (probably from Ephorus) of the Theban Heniochoi and Parabatai with the 300 epilektoi,
the latter a phenomenon of the fifth and fourth centuries, would imply transfer of a traditional name to a new type of unit, and Diodorus' use of proemachonto would indicate deployment in the front ranks, not as an advanced unit (see Pritchett in n. 52 supra). Lazenby plausibly argues that the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae and at the monomachia for Thyreae are not the Hippeis, a royal escort of men under the age of 30, although the name implies a connection with cavalry in the distant past. Most recently, Bugh argues for the existence of Athenian cavalry before the fifth century (see Pollux, Onom. 8.108), but denies that Solon's classes called Hippeis and Zeugitai reflect a military function: see G.R. Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens (Princeton, 1988) 4–38. Not all his arguments are equally compelling. Cf. Rhodes (infra n. 57) 137–8.
54. Tyrtaeus as general: Suda s.v.Tyrtaios; Polyaenus 1.17; Diod. 8.37; Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 216=Ath. 14.630f; Callisthenes, FGrHist 124 F 24=Strabo 8.4.10; Lycurg., Leoc. 106; Spartan kings: Hdt. 5.75.2 with How and Wells (infra n. 58) II, 41: Lazenby 1985:20. A second-century papyrus (copying Ephorus?) ascribes a military command to the famous ephor Chilon ca 556: FGrHist 105 F 1; Cartledge 1979 (supra n. 50): 140, 158. Possible military activity of the lawgiver Lycurgus was debated in antiquity: see Wheeler 1983:16–17.
55. Xen, Lac. Resp. 11.9, cf. 13.6. Unlike Lazenby (1985:175 n. 7), I do not accept assignment of this work to a Ps.-Xenophon, as K.M.T.Chrimes, The Respublica Lacedaimonicorum Ascribed to Xenophon (Manchester, 1948) and Ancient Sparta (Manchester, 1949) App. VII.
56. Thuc. 5.66.2–4, 68; Xen., Lac. Resp. 11.4. The complex problems of Spartan military organization cannot be treated here. See A.Toynbee, Some Problems in Greek History (Oxford, 1969) 365–404; Anderson 1970:225–51; Lazenby 1985:4–10, 50–2, 66–80; T.J.Figueira, 'Population patterns in Late Archaic and Classical Sparta,' TAPA 116 (1986) 165–211; Cartledge (supra n. 16) 427–9.
57. Arist., Ath. Pol. 22.2; differing interpretations of this passage in P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981) 264–5; G.R.Stanton, The tribal reform of Kleisthenes the Alkmeonid,' Chiron 14 (1984) 15–16; Fornara (supra n. 20) 3–6; C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952) 145–6, 169–70, 176.
58. Arist., Ath. Pol. 3.2, 41.2, cf. 4.2; Hdt. 8.44.2 (Ion=stratarches); W.W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford, 1912) II, 249; Hignett (supra n. 57) 47–55; Rhodes (supra n. 57) 66–73,100; Schaefer, 'Polemarchos 4,' RE Supplbd. 8 (1956) 1101–2.
59. Xen., Lac. Resp. 11.4; 13.1, 4, 9; Plut., Lyc. 12.3; Thuc. 5.66.3; schol. in Pl, Phd. 235D; Schaefer (supra n. 58) 1124–8, 1132.
60. Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist 90 F 57.5; anon., FGrHist 105 F 2; Schaefer (supra n. 58) 1121–2. Ephorus probably drew on the fourth-century tyrant of his own time as a model of interpreting archaic tyrants. On tyrants see n. 50 supra.
61. For the date of this reform I find Hignett (supra n. 57) 171–6 more convincing; opposing views summarized in Rhodes (supra n. 57) 264–5. The whole of Ath. Pol. 4 (Draco's constitution), where strategoi and
phylarchs are mentioned, is anachronistic: cf. Rhodes 109–12. It should also be noted that tyrants and magistrates in Sicily also were called strategoi in the fifth century, but it cannot be demonstrated that Sicilian use of the term antedates the Athenian reform of 501/500 BC Cf. How and Wells (supra n. 58) II, 197; Hignett, 116–17.
62. Arist., Ath. Pol. 8.3,41.2; W.Schwann, 'Strategos,' RE Supplbd. 6 (1935) 1071–2; Hignett (supra n. 57) 77; Fornara (supra n. 20) 6–7 with n. 17; Siewert (supra n. 24) 154. The analogy of phylarchs in Hdt. 5.69.2 with the tribal cavalry commanders in the fifth and fourth centuries (Arist., Ath. Pol. 61.5; Xen., Mag.Eq. 1.8.21–22, 25; 2.1.7; 3.6; 8.17–18) is false; nor can it be proved that the Athenian army was predominantly a cavalry force before the sixth century: see Fornara (supra n. 20) 1,8 with rebuttal by Bugh (supra n. 53) 5 with n. 14; Rhodes (supra n. 57) 686. Schwann (1072) equates phylobasileus with stratarches, but the latter word in Aesch. fr.304 Mette, where it would indicate a phylarch, is textually uncertain. Pindar twice uses stratarches in a Trojan War context for the leader of the Ethiopians (Pyth. 6.31; Isth. 5.40), and in Hdt. 3.157.4 it denotes Zopyrus' appointment to high command by Darius I. Definition of the term outside Athens may have been fluid, but Ion was believed to have been a polemarch (stratarches): see n. 58 supra.
63. Frost (1984) 283–94; H.van Effenterre, 'Clisthène et les mesures de mobilisation,' REG 89 (1976) 1–4; Connor 1988:6–7.
64. Arist., Ath. Pol. 15.4–5; Polyaenus 1.21.2; Frost 1984:291; on Cleisthenes' mobilization scheme see Siewert (supra n. 24) 10–13,141–5; contra Stanton (supra n. 57) 3–6.
65. Herodotus' account (6.109–10) is riddled with anachronisms: see Hignett (supra n. 57) 170–3; M.H.Jameson, 'Seniority in the Stratêgia,' TAPA 86 (1955) 79–81; How and Wells (supra n. 58) II, 357; Rhodes (supra n. 57) 264–5; Fornara (supra n. 20) 6–7, 72–3. The right flank as the place of honor: Eur., Supp. 656–8; Hdt. 6.111.1; 9.28.1, 46.1; Thuc. 5.71; Xen., Hell. 2.4.30, Lac. Resp. 11.9; Plut., Mor. 626D-E; cf. Lammert 1899:18–19.
66. Hignett (supra n. 57) 176; F.Lammert, 'Taxiarchos' and 'Taxis,' RE 5A.1 (1934) 75, 85–7; earliest reference: Aesch. fr.304 (= Ath. 1.lld-e), 596 Mette, cf. Arist., Ath. Pol. 61.3; taxis=phyle: Thuc. 6.98.4. Rhodes (supra n. 57) 684–5 unconvincingly argues for taxiarchs before 487/6 BC based on the fourth-century Oath of Plataea.
67. Ad hoc command: see Rhodes (supra n. 57) 264; First Sacred War: Plut., Sol. 11.2; bibliography in Wheeler 1987:172 with n. 69; Peisistratus: Hdt. 1.59.4; Arist., Ath. Pol. 22.3; Aen. Tact. 4.8–11; Front, Strat. 2.9.9; Just. 2.8.1–4; How and Wells (supra n. 58) I, 82; Schaefer (supra n. 58) 1122; Hignett (supra n. 57) 113. Given Herodotus' frequent anachronisms, his use of strategos for non-Athenian commanders of the seventh and sixth centuries doe
s not prove widespread use of the term in the Archaic period, as N.G.L.Hammond thinks: 'Strategia and hegemonia in fifth-century Athens,' CQ 19 (1969) 113 with n. 2.
68. Contra Stanton (supra n. 57) 1–41: the reforms aimed at increasing Alcmaeonid influence.
69. Hignett (supra n. 57) 69; Fornara (supra n. 20) 3–6; H.T.Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History (Oxford, 1958) 154.
70. Arist, Ath. Pol. 7.3; Plut., Sol. 18.2; Rhodes (supra n. 57) 137–8.
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience Page 23
