71. Plut., Arist. 5.3–5, Mor. 626D-E; Hdt. 6.111.1; subunits: Hdt. 9.21.3; Xen., Mem. 3.1.5,4.1; Arist., Ath. Pol. 61.3; cf. Isae. 2.42; Kromayer and Veith 1928:49 with n. 3; Siewert (supra n. 24) 7 n. 42, 142–3; Lazenby 1985:193 n. 14; additional references in Rhodes (supra n. 57) 685, who doubts the existence of such units; trittyarch: Pl., Rep. 5.475A; cf. Arist., Ath. Pol. 8.3, 21.4.
72. The young aristocrat's death en promachois possibly at Pallene ca 540 BC (n. 52 supra) implies close combat, but is too vague to prove use of a fully developed phalanx. Nor does reference to parataxis in a second-century AD commentary on Alcaeus (P.Oxy. 2506, fr.98) prove anything about the late seventh or early sixth century, as Pritchett (War 4.36–7) argues. As noted (supra n. 21), parataxis does not denote 'phalanx.' This noun first appears in Thuc. 5.11.2 (cf. 5.9.4) and the initial occurrence of the verb paratatto, Hdt. 9–31.2, regards Persian deployment at Piataea.
73. Law on desertion: Aeschin., In Ctes. 175; Schwertfeger (1982) 264–5; Solon's laws: Hignett (supra n. 57) 17–27.
74. Hdt. 6.114; for Herodotus' aner genomenos agathos=arete, see Loraux (supra n. 7) 99.
75. Cf. Hanson 1989:114. Miltiades' prominence in the depiction of Marathon on the Stoa Poecile, where he is seen exhorting the Athenians before the battle, in no way proves his presence in the front rank for combat. Aeschines' obscure protoi (In Ctes. 186: mistranslated as 'in the front rank' in the Loeb edition) is clarified in Nep., Milt. 6.3–4: Namque huic Miltiadi, quia Athenas totamque Graeciam liberarat, talis honos tributus est: in porticu, quae Poecile vocatur, cum pugna depingeretur Marathona, ut in decem praetorum numero primaeius imago poneretur isque hortaretur militis proeliumque committeret. Callimachus also appeared in the painting: Paus. 1.15.3.
76. Cf. Hdt. 7.158.5: Gelon of Syracuse's demand to be strategos and hegemon of the Greek confederacy in 480 BC. Strategos here may be anachronistic, but in this context it denotes absolute authority to command, whereas the leader of an alliance of equals was a hegemon, as Pausanias at Piataea (cf. Thuc. 1.18.2) and Philip II and Alexander in the League of Corinth: see Cartledge 1979 (supra n. 50):202–3; Bosworth (supra n. 17) 189–90 with n. 5. On Sicilian strategoi see supra n. 61. Analysis of Pausanias' tactical and strategic functions at Piataea lies beyond the scope of this paper. It should be noted, however, that Pausanias styled himself archegos on the inscription he set up at Delphi (Thuc. 1.132.2; Plut., Mor. 873C), a word denoting more authority and power than the tamer nuance of hegemon in the Classical Period: cf. LSJ9 s.vv. Archegos also appears in an incomplete line of the Themistocles Decree: Meiggs/Lewis 1969: no. 23 line 11.
77. Loraux (supra n. 7) 42–76; on the date see Pritchett, War 4.112–24.
78. Ar., Nub. 960–86; Thuc. 1.121.4, 123.1; Pl, Lach. 179C; Xen., Mem. 3.5.3,9–11,22.
79. After 461 BC: Arist., Ath. Pol. 26.1, cf. Ps.-Xen., Ath. Pol. 1.3; Rhodes
(supra n. 57) 323–8; 420s: Arist., Ath, Pol. 28; Ar., Pax 672–8; Xen., Symp. 2.14, cf Ar., Av. 1553–64.
80. Eur., Supp. 161–2, 861–917.
81. Thuc. 1.138.3, 140–44; 2.60–5.
82. See Plut., Them. 2.4, Mor. 869F; E.L.Wheeler, Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (Mnemosyne Supp. 108: Leiden, 1988) 25–41, esp. 29 with n. 22, 33 with n. 44.
83. On Homer and the hoplomachoi see nn. 12, 20 supra; cf. Euripides' satire of sophistic military instruction: Supp. 902–8.
84. Wheeler 1981:74–9 and 1983:2–6. Bibliography on Aeneas in Wheeler 1983:8 n. 40 and (supra n. 12) 175 with n. 67.
85. See J.de Romilly, 'Réflexions sur le courage chez Thucydides et chez Platon,' REG 93 (1980) 307–23.
86. Arist., EN 3–8.3; cf. E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1971) 17–18; E.Sagen, The Lust to Annihilate: a Psycho-analytic Study of Violence in Ancient Greek Culture (New York, 1979) 75–80.
87. For a study of the trend from the standpoint of militarism see Lengauer 1979. Pritchett (War 2.4–116) disputes that a separation of civil and military functions occurred and documents, especially at Athens, continued civilian control of generals.
88. Miltiades: Aeschin., In Ctes. 186; Nep., Milt. 6.3–4; cf. n. 75 supra', Pausanias: Thuc. 1.132.2–3; Plut., Mor. 873C; cf. Meiggs and Lewis 1969: no. 27; Cimon: Aeschin., In Ctes. 183–6; Plut., Cim. 7–8.2; Iphicrates: Suda s.v.; Parke 1933:74 n. 2. Cf. M.N.Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, II (Oxford, 1948) no. 130 (IG VII 2462) for an apparent protest by one boeotarch and two others against Epaminondas' prominence after Leuctra.
89. Hyperides, Epitaph. 3, 14–15; Loraux (supra n. 7) 52, 111–13.
90. Plut., Mor. 193B; Paus. 9.13.11–12; Anderson 1970:39–
91. Anderson 1970:39–40; Hanson 1989:63, 110; on Spartan officers see Lazenby 1985:18–24. Keegan (supra n. 5) 125 believes an officer class existed at Sparta but not elsewhere.
92. Greeks did not develop the more intricate Roman system of identification of subunits and even individuals' names on the shields. See Veg. 2.18: Sed ne milites aliquando in tumultu proelii a suis contubemalibus aberrarent, diversis cohortibus diversa in scutis signa pingebant, ut ipsi nominant, digmata, sicut etiam nunc moris est fieri. Praeterea in adverso scuto uniuscuiusque militis litteris erat nomen adscriptum, addito et ex qua esset cohorte quave centuria.
93. Snodgrass 1967:67, 95–6, 137 n. 25; Anderson 1970:17–20, 39–40; Lazenby 1985:30 175 n.4; Ducrey 1985:52; N.Sekunda, The Ancient Greeks: Armies of Classical Greece, 5th and 4th Centuries BC (London, 1986) 3, 6, 8, 25–6, pl. Al, A3; on shield emblems see esp. L.Lacroix, 'Les "blazons" des villes grecques,' EtArchClass 1 (1955–6) 89–116. Hardie (supra n. 17) 12 discusses astrological symbols on shields.
94. Pace Kromayer (Kromayer and Veith 1928:83–4) intervals separated the subdivisions of the phalanx, but a supposed parallel with the deployment of Maurice of Nassau (early seventeenth century) is the
only evidence cited. Nevertheless, a battleline consisting of contingents from more than one polis probably did tolerate gaps between the respective phalanges of each city, since each polis' forces functioned as a distinct unit: cf. the battles of Mantineia (418 BC), Nemea (394 BC), and Coronea (394 BC). A battle-line of allied Greek cities should not be conceived as a continuous phalanx from flank to flank.
95. Thuc. 5.68.2–3; Lammert 1899:17; statuette: Lazenby 1985:33, pl. 3; Sekunda (supra n. 93) 3, 6, pl. Al; cf. Veg. 2.13: Centuriones… transversis cassidum cristis, ut facilius noscerentur, singulas iusserunt gubernare centurias; G.Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (London, 1969) 132 with n. 4, 133, pl. IV.
96. Taxiarchs: Ar., Pax 1172–6, schol. in 241; Ach. 965; Kromayer and Veith 1928:51; Anderson 1970:40; strategoi: Sekunda (supra n. 93) 56. The shield apron of leather or cloth, doubtless an anti-missile device inspired by combat with Persians, appears on vase paintings of Asia Minor and the Greek mainland ca 550 BC to the early fourth century and was once thought the sign of an officer. Since file leaders do carry them, it cannot be denied that officers could be so equipped, but the shield apron would not necessarily distinguish an officer from a non-officer. See Anderson 1970:17 and, most recently,). Eero, 'On the shield-apron in the ancient Greek panoply,' AArch 57 (1986) 1–25.
97. Arr., Anab. 1.14.4; Plut., Alex. 16.7,Pyrrh. 16.7, Nic. 28.5, Alcib. 16.1–2; Ath. 12.534e; Xen., Anab. 3.2.7, cf. Ael, VH 3.24; Diod. 14.43.2–3; Plut., Dion 28.3. Cf. Plut., Demetr. 21.3–4, Diod. 19.3.2.
98. Agesilaus, renowned for his simplicity of dress (Xen., Ages. 11.11), might appear an exception, but in his military role as Spartan king he did not renounce the customary royal Spartan practices. Plutarch (Ages. 19.4–6) shows only that he refused to adopt Persian customs, not that he lacked distinguishing armor. A general's spear (Plut., Ages. 19.6), unless ceremonial, would not have greatly differed from that of the rank-and-file hoplite. Cf. Hanson 1989:59.
99. Xen., Cyr. 3.3.61–2; 4.1.6; 7.1.20, 23, 26.
100. Agesilaus: Xen., Ages. 2.15; Plut., Ages. 16.5; Pelopidas: Plut., Pel. 32.5–7; Nep., Pel. 5.4. Diodorus (15.
80.5) is vague on the matter. Buckler's reconstruction of the battle homogenizes the contradiction: Pelopidas first led a cavalry charge, then dismounted and died at the head of an infantry assault: J.Buckler, The Theban Hegemony 371–362 BC (Harvard Historical Studies 98: Cambridge, Mass., 1980) 176–80.
101. See J.A.O.Larsen, The Achamians and the pay of taxiarchs,' CP 41 (1946) 91–8; Hignett (supra n. 57) 220; Bugh (supra n. 53) 53–4 denies that strategoi, hipparchs, and phylarchs received state pay, but cites no modern discussions of the question. Rates of pay for hoplites and rowers are discussed in Pritchett, War 1.3–29.
102. Xen., Anab. 7.6.1; Griffith 1935:295. Cf. Xen., Anab. 3.1.37.
103. Pausanias: Hdt. 9.81.2; cf. Pritchett War 1.83, War 2.289–90 with n. 56 on the amount; Spartan kings: Polyb. 2.62.1 (from Phylarchus); Pritchett, War 1.84, cf. 75–6; War 2.126. Little is known about the officer pay in the Spartan army (if it existed at all) except that the kings
received a double portion of food and drink: Hdt. 6.57.1; Xen., Lac. Resp. 15.4, Ages. 5.1. Cf. Arist., Pol. 3.14.3–4; Cartledge (supra n. 16) 105–6, 206.
104. See Pritchett, War 1.84; War 2.126–32, 276 n. 1.
105. Agesilaus: Xen., Ages. 1.25–6; Hell. 3.4.16, 4.2.5; Jason: Xen., Hell. 6.1.6; Iphicrates: Polyaenus 3.9.31. Cf. Xen., Cyr. 2.1.22–4.
106. Xen., Ages. 2.8 and esp. Hiero 2.15–16; cf. Hanson 1989:119–21,190–1. Evidence on the aristeia collected in Pritchett, War 2.276–90; War 3.57. A notable recent study of Roman military awards fails to consider Greek precedents: V.A.Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley, 1981).
107. Hdt. 9.71.3–4; Plut, Ages. 34.6–8, Pel. 1.4; Loraux (supra n. 7) 99; lyssa vs sophrosyne: Detienne, in Vernant 1968:122.
108. Salamis: Hdt. 8.123.2; Plut., Them. 17.1, Mor. 871D; Granicus: Diod. 17.21.4. Cf. Caesar at Pharsalus: App., BC 2. 82.
109. Xen., Mag. Eq. 2.6, cf. Anab. 3.1.37, Cyr. 1.6.25.
110. See Andrewes 1981:1–3; Garlan 1989:148–9.
111. Meiggs and Lewis 1969: nos. 33 lines 5–6, 33, cf. lines 128–9 (mantis), lines 67–70; 48 line 4; D.W.Bradeen, The Athenian Agora XVIII: Inscriptions: the Funerary Monuments (Princeton, 1974) nos. 22 A line 34, C lines 152–3, 159; 23 A; 25. Cf. Bradeen 1969:145–59.
112. Thuc. 7.86.2; Plut., Nic. 28.2, 4; 29.
113. Ar., Ach. 597, 1071–234; Larsen (supra n. 101) 96. The ridicule of a taxiarch at Ar., Pax 1172–90 likewise is aimed at the officer as a symbol of military service.
114. Thuc. 5.65.2; Xen., Hell. 4.2.22; on the army as a city see C. Mossé, 'Le rôle politique des armies dans le monde grec à l'époque classique,' in Vernant 1968:221–9.
115. Keegan (supra n. 5) 316–17, cf. 329–38; Beaumont (supra n. 15) 70–1. A current example of kinship is the US Army's policy that even general officers wear combat fatigues as their daily uniform.
116. Xen., Ages. 5.1–4; 6.4–7; 7.2; 8.1–4, 6–8; 10.1–2; 11; cf. Cyr. 1.2.1; Hanson 1989:110–11; Cartledge (supra n. 16) 206–7.
117. E.g. Liv. 21.4.2–8 (Hannibal); Dio 68.23.1 (Trajan); HA, Had. 10.2–6; Pesc. Nig. 10.11.
118. Xen., Anab. 3.1.42; Cyr. 3–3.19. Cf. Keegan (supra n. 5) 122–3.
119. Onas, 33–6; Phil.Mech., Syn. Mech. 5.D.68–9 Garlan; cf. Front., Strat. 2.8.12–13.
120. See Xen., Anab. 3.2.29–30; Arist., Metaph. 11.10, 1075al2–15; Polyaenus 3.9.22; Plut., Pel. 2.1–2.
121. Polyaenus 2.3.15; Xen., Hell. 6.4.12.
122. Tegyra: Plut., Pel. 16.1,17.3–4; Granicus: Arr., Anab. 1.15.3; Issus: Diod. 17.33.5; Curt. 3.11.7–11; Gaugamela: Arr., Anab. 3.14.2–3; Diod. 17.60.1–4; Plut., Alex. 33.3–8. Cf. Nep., Epam. 9.1.
123. Onas. 23; Front., Strat. 2.4.9 (cf. Plut., Pyrrh. 17.1–3), 2.4.10; Sall, lug. 101.6–8. Although all known examples of this stratagem are Roman, Onasander's treatise is a compendium of Greek military thought (fourth century and Hellenistic) for Roman consumption. See D. Ambaglio, 'Il trattato "Sul Commandante" di Onasandro,' Athenaeum
59 (1981) 353–77.
124. See Hanson 1988:200–1 and 1989:112; Teleutias: Xen., Hell. 5.3.6. Cf. the death of the polemarchs at Tegyra (Plut., Pel. 17.3–4) and Nepos' account of Epaminondas' end at Mantineia (Epam. 9.1–2).
125. Xen., Mag. Eq. 2.6; Anab. 3.1.37.
126. Marathon: Plut., Them. 3.3, Arist. 5.3–5; Tanagra: Plut., Per. 10.1–2; see Fornara (supra n. 20) 46 on Pericles' status; Agesilaus: Plut., Ages. 1.1–3, 37.1, 39.3–4; Mantineia: Plut., Pel. 4.4–5, 20.2; cf. Nep., Epam. 7.1–2.
127. Brasidas: Thuc. 2.25.2, 4.11.2–4; Lamachus: Thuc. 6.101.6; Chabrias/ Plutarch: Plut., Phoc. 6.1, 13.1.
128. Xen., Ages. 6.2; Plut., Ages. 36.2, Pel. 2.3, cf. Mor. 187C
129. Plut., Pyrrh. 30.4–6, Pel. 32.5–7; Nep., Pel. 5.1–4; Xen., Hell. 5.3.6–7.
130. See Hanson 1988:201 n. 30 and 1989:113–15.
131. Paul (supra n. 16) 308 counts twenty-two generals or independent commanders killed in approximately eighty-three land battles in Thucydides. Casualty figures for generals are not treated in P.Krentz, GRBS (1985) 13–20. Casualty rates for generals need not be a function of the level of technology. To cite a modern example, the so-called first 'modern war,' the American Civil War (1861–5), is known for high casualties among general officers: 80 generals on each side were killed in battle and 123 Union and 135 Confederate generals received battle wounds. But the American Revolution (1775–83), fought at a lower technological level, produced a higher ratio of general to total fatalities, 1:499—the highest of any American war, although only twelve American generals fell in battle. For the Civil War the ratios are 1:1729 (Union) and 1:932 (Confederate). See R.K.Brown, Fallen in Battle: American General Officer Combat Fatalities from 1775 (New York, 1988) 164, 197.
132. Snodgrass 1967:62 and pl. 54; Hanson 1989:111; Anderson 1970:pl. 13b.
133. Xen., Lac. Resp. 11.5; cf. Thuc. 5.66.4; Asclep., Tact. 2.2–3; Ael., Tact. 5.1–5; Arr., Tact. 5.4–6.6.
134. Pritchett, War 1.134–43, esp. 142–3; Lammert/Lammert 1921:446–8. The argument for blind files, based on the obscure Xen., Lac. Resp. 13.9, dates from Köchly and Rüstow 1852:121 and Boucher 1912:301. See Anderson 1970:79 with n. 49, 99 with n. 18.
135. I do not share the pessimism of Pritchett (War 1.150 n. 35, 153–4) and Hanson (1989:11–12) on the value of these treatises. Terms such as protostates and ouragos occur in Thucydides (5.71.1) as well as Xenophon (Lac. Resp. 11.5; Cyr. 3.3.40), and the basic evolutions of drill probably changed little. Asclepiodotus (Tact. 2.2) was aware of differences between the classical and the Hellenistic phalanx: cf. Wheeler 1983:19. On the other hand, a credulous approach to the theoretical treatises can lead to absurdity: see Devine 1983:201–17 with the rebuttal by Buckler 1985:134–43.
136. See n. 65 supra; Xen., Lac. Resp. 13.6 with Buckler (supra n. 100) 63, followed by Lazenby 1985:29–30; contra, Anderson 1970:248; Agis: Thuc. 5.72.4. The Persian king also commanded from the center both for his own protection and to facilitate communications with both flanks: Xen., Anab. 1.8.22; Diod. 14.23.5; Arr., Anab. 3.11.5.
137. Xen., Hell. 4.3.15–18, Ages. 2.9–11; Plut., Ages. 18.1–2.
138. Plut., Ages. 18.3, cf. 19.1; Xen., Hell. 4.3.19–20, Ages 2.12–14.
139. Agis: Thuc. 5.72.4; Cleombrotus: Xen., Hell. 6.4.14; Buckler (supra n. 100) 63; cf. Anderson 1970:201, 247–9, 322 n.43. The wounding of Cleombrotus possibly did not occur as early in the battle as Lazenby (1985:160) thinks; cf. Diod. 15.55.5; Xen., Hell. 6.4.13–14.
140. Xen., Hell. 6.4.13, 7.4.23; Plut., Lyc. 22.4.
141. Callimachus: Hdt. 6.113–14; Lycophron at Solygia (425 BC): Thuc. 4.44.2; Brasidas at Amphipolis (422 BC): Thuc 5.10.8, 11; Laches and Nicostratus at Mantineia (418 BC)—probably trampled by their own men while trying to stop the rout: Thuc. 5.61.1, 72.4; Lamachus at Syracuse (414 BC): Thuc. 6.101.6; Pelopidas at Cynoscephalae (364 BC): see n. 100 supra; Epaminondas at Mantineia (362 BC): Plut., Ages. 35.1; Xen., Hell. 7.5.23–5; Diod. 15.86.3–87.1; Nep., Epam. 9.1.
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience Page 24
