Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience

by Victor Davis Hanson

  The intention of this small collection has been to advocate an alternative approach to the study of Greek warfare, one that eschews the traditional triad of strategy, tactics, and logistics to concentrate more on the experience of fighting. Because hoplite infantrymen of the Archaic and Classical Ages wore nearly identical equipment, often fought in almost equal numbers, and followed uniformly formal rules of engagement, which were usually without intricate maneuver and articulation, emphasis on the battle environment is particularly apt and, in fact, long overdue. More remains to be done—so much so that in the future the pragmatic concerns of hoplites will not be a footnote to more conventional studies; rather they will rightly become the central focus of Greek military history.

  For example, it is still not clear how one phalanx engineered the defeat of its adversary, given such rough parity in technology, numbers, tactics, generalship, and terrain. Examination of hoplite battles from Marathon and Plataia to Delion, Haliartos, Leuktra and Mantineia may suggest that, in the majority of cases (the Spartans perhaps being only occasional exceptions), troops fighting on the defensive in their own territory usually repelled the invaders. Was classical hoplite battle then essentially protective and simply not designed for conquest or even attack beyond disputed borderlands? Unit morale—the real key to effective advance—was superb as long as citizen-farmers knew that each man fought to protect his own ground, not to harm, occupy, or even trespass on the farms of another.

  In that general context, were the more subtle qualitative, national characteristics of particular hoplite armies (the discipline and professionalism of the Spartans; the bodily strength and combative skill of Theban hoplites; the emotionalism—characterized by reckless courage or abject despondency—of Athenian infantry; the similar

  unevenness and unpredictability of performance among Argive troops) less important than the knowledge that one fought on the ground of his fathers. Yet, such a 'home-court' advantage must not be discussed only in terms of esprit de corps when we keep in mind that hoplite killing-fields everywhere were nearly uniform, hoplite battle thus giving little opportunity to the defenders for manipulation of local terrain or indigenous populations.

  Much, too, has been written about the frequency of hoplite battle. A systematic, inclusive list of all hoplite battles from 650 BC to Chaironeia (names, dates, combatants, outcome, etc.) is surely now needed—one that supplements traditional historical accounts through the use of (less certain) archaeological, epigraphical, and anecdotal literary evidence. Through such a Catalogus Proeliorum Graecorum we could obtain some rough estimate, not merely of the total time and numbers invested, but perhaps also of the casualties inflicted in land warfare during the history of the Greek city-states. While there have been some preliminary studies devoted to casualty ratios and the nature and incidence of wounds, no comprehensive account of war losses exists for the entire period of hoplite warfare.

  Too much emphasis also has been placed on too few battles, for example, Marathon and Leuktra.1 Others, such as Delion, Mantineia, and Koroneia, may tell us much more about what a hoplite battle was like. At Delion, for example we learn of the first appearance of a deepened phalanx, of a strange use of mounted reserves, of frightful accidental casualties, of bodies rotting in the sun for days, of a desperate, lengthy, and infamous Athenian retreat.

  Were there also acknowledged arenas of battle? There seems to have been only a small, set number of suitable plains where hoplite armies traditionally agreed to meet in battle, a phenomenon which reinforces the ritualistic notion of Greek warfare. How else can we explain the repeated engagements, generation after generation, in the identical Argive, Corinthian, and Mantineian plains? Consider, too, the striking proximity of battle-sites in Boiotia—a veritable 'blood alley' of sorts—over a 200-year period; there, only a very few miles separate Plataia, Tanagra, Oinophyta, Delion, Haliartos, Koroneia, Leuktra, and Chaironeia.

  On a more mundane level, the role of the middle and rear ranks of the phalanx is also poorly understood. Was it their task to push, to kill off at their feet enemy casualties, to prevent retreat, to replace the fallen, to deflect missiles, to aid their own wounded, to act as a reserve of sorts? What were the criteria—skill, courage, experience, age, size, class,

  status, armament, vote, lot, choice, random chance—which placed particular individuals or tribal contingents at particular slots in the phalanx? And what were the differing challenges and martial tasks inherent at these places, the front, middle, rear, and exposed right file?

  In a wider sense, what led to the gradual transformation of classical hoplite warfare? Was it, as is so often argued, the steady decline—in a social and economic sense—of the free city-state and its landed hoplite class of amateurs, the diminishing importance of agriculture itself in the lives of the majority of the polis? Or was it the contagion of foreign military experience, the increasing frequency of battling against those with different equipment and strange notions about the nature and role of war and warrior in society? Or, did the formal rules of engagement ultimately become absurd, irrelevant to the hoplites who fought—men who saw no reason to cease fighting in defeat, when less than 20 percent of their own had fallen, men who simply found hoplite arms and armor anachronistic and expensive encumbrances? Or, finally, have we too often exaggerated such changes in battle of the fifth and fourth century BC, especially when we remember the classic hoplite collisions—Koroneia, Nemea, Leuktra, Mantineia, Chaironeia—rather than accompanying skirmishes or siegecraft, still remain a (even if not the) central focus in Greek warfare.

  Such inquiry is not mere eccentricity. Knowledge about the Greek combat experience, its frequency and nature, can reveal much about the values of Greek society and the lives of many of its greatest thinkers: Tyrtaeus, Archilochus, Alcaeus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Pericles, Socrates, Xenophon, Demosthenes and others. Far more importantly, battle history brings a much needed reality, a morality, to the whole time-honored notion of an 'art of warfare,' that obscene enough phrase which operational historians employ when investigating the 'science' of killing and maiming faceless mobs of humanity. In conclusion, we would do well when investigating Greek warfare simply to remember the words of Adlous Huxley:

  The language of strategy and politics is designed…to make it appear as though wars were not fought by individuals drilled to murder one another in cold blood and without provocation, but either by impersonal and therefore wholly nonnormal and impassable forces, or else by personified abstractions…. Accordingly, when we talk about war, we use a language which conceals or embellishes its reality. Ignoring the facts, so far as we possibly can, we imply that battles are not fought by soldiers, but by things, principles, allegories, personified collectives, or (at the most human) by opposing commanders, pitched against one another in single combat. For the same reason, when we have to describe the processes and the results of war, we employ a rich variety of euphemisms. Even the most violently patriotic and militaristic are reluctant to call a spade by its own name.2

  NOTES

  1. W.K.Pritchett, for example, once remarked of scholarship concerning Leuktra that, "there are more reconstructions of Leuktra than any other Greek battle, and the end is not in sight" (War 4.54, n. 159); in this present volume (p. 156, n. 18) Everett L.Wheeler drew similar conclusions of Marathon: there is "publication of at least one article on the battle nearly every year".

  2. Huxley, 'Words and behavior,' in Collected Essays (New York, 1958), 246–8.

  * * *

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  For the period 1918–39 there is a bibliography of Greek warfare in general by F.Lammert in Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 274 (1941) 1–114; most recently, R.Lonis has done a similar study for the fifteen years between 1968 and 1983, 'La guerre en Grèce: 15 années de recherche 1968–1983' in Révue des Etudes Grecques 98 (1985) 321–79. The following titles refer to works cited in parentheses in the text. Abbreviations of periodicals follow t
hose found in the Oxford Classical Dictionary.

  Adam, J.P. L'architecture militaire grecque (Paris, 1982).

  Adcock, F.E. The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1957).

  Ahlberg, G. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971).

  Anderson, J.K. Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961).

  ——'Cleon's Orders at Amphipolis,' JHS 85 (1965) 1–5.

  ——Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970).

  ——'Hoplites and heresies: a note,' JHS 104 (1984) 152.

  Andrewes, A. 'The hoplite katalogos,' in G.S.Shrimpton and D.J.McCargar (eds) Classical Contributions: Studies in Honor of M.F.McGregor (New York, 1981).

  Arnould, D. Guerre et paix dans la poésie greque (New York, 1981).

  Aymard, A. 'Remarques sur la poliorcétique grecque,' in Etudes d'histoire ancienne (Paris, 1967) 474–86.

  Bar-Kochva, B. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cambridge, England, 1975).

  Best, J.G.P. Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen, 1969).

  Blyth, P.H. 'The structure of a hoplite shield in the Museo Gregoriano Etrusco,' Bolletino Dei Musei E Gallerie Pontifice 3 (1982) 5–21.

  Blyth, P. The Effectiveness of Greek Armour Against Arrows in the Persian War (Ph.D. University of Reading, 1977).

  Borchhardt, J. Homerische Helme (Mainz, 1972).

  Boucher, A. 'ZLa tactique grecque à l'origine de l'histoire militair,'' REG 25 (1912) 300–12.

  Bradeen, D.W. 'The Athenian casualty lists,' CQ 63 (1969) 145–59.

  Brelich, A. 'Guerre Agoni e Culti nella Grecia arcaica,' Antiquitas 1.7 (1966) 9–21.

  Buckler,J. 'Epameinondas and the EMBO^ON,' Phoenix 39 (1985) 134–43.

  Burford, A. 'Heavy transport in Classical Antiquity,' Economic History Review [2nd series] 13 (1960): 1–18.

  Cartledge, P. 'Hoplites and heroes: Sparta's contribution to the technique of ancient warfare,' JHS 97: (1977) 11–23.

  Cawkwell, G.L. Philip of Macedon (London, 1978).

  Chase, G.H. 'The shield devices of the Greeks,' HSCP 13: (1902) 61–127.

  Chrimes, K.M.T. Ancient Sparta (Manchester, England, 1949).

  Connolly, P. Greece and Rome at War (London, 1981).

  Connor, W.R. 'Early Greek land warfare as symbolic expression,' Past and Present 119 (1988) 3–27.

  Couissin, P. Les institutions militaires et navales (Paris, 1932).

  Curtius, E. 'Zur Geschichte des Wegebaus bei den Griechen,' Abb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. (Berlin, 1854): 211–303.

  Delbrück, H. Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte Vol. I, Das Altertum (1900; new edn by K. Christ 1964) tr. W.

  Renfroe, History of Warfare Vol. I, (Westport, Conn., 1975).

  Despotopoulos, T. 'Hê Odopoiia en Elladi,' Technika Chronika 17 (1940): 255–61, 329–39, 530–40.

  Devine, A.M. 'EMBO^ON: a study in tactical terminology,' Phoenix 37 (1983) 201–17.

  Dittenberger, W. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edn (Leipzig 1915–24).

  Donlan, W. and Thompson,J. 'The charge at Marathon: Herodotus 6.112,' CJ 71 (1976) 339–43.

  ——'The charge at Marathon again,' CW 72 (1979) 419–20.

  Droysen, H. 'Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen,' in K.F.Herman, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten II (2nd edn, Freiburg, 1889).

  Ducrey, P. Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique (Freiburg, 1968).

  ——Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique. (Paris, 1985) [tr. J. Lloyd, Warfare in Ancient Greece, (New York, 1986)].

  Ferrill, A. 'Herodotus and the strategy and tactics of the invasion of Xerxes,' American Historical Review 72 (1966) 102–15.

  —— The Origins of War (New York, 1985).

  Fornara, C.W. 'The hoplite achievement at Psyttaleia,' JHS 96 (1966) 51–9.

  Frazer, A.D. 'The myth of the phalanx scrimmage,' CW 36 (1942) 15–16.

  Frost, F. 'The Athenian military before Cleisthenes,' Historia 33 (1984) 283–94.

  Fuller, J.F.C. The Generalship of Alexander the Great (London, 1958).

  ——War in the Ancient World [trans.Janet Lloyd (London, 1975)].

  ——'War and siegecraft,' Cambridge Ancient History 7.1 (Cambridge, England, 1984) 353–62.

  —— Guerre et economic en Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1989).

  Garlan, Y. 'Fortifications et histoire grecque,' in Problèmes de la guerre (Paris, 1968) 245–60.

  ——'La défense du territoire à l'époque classique,' in Problèmes de la terre, (Paris, 1973): 149–60.

  ——Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris, 1974).

  Goodman, M.G. and Holladay, A.J. 'Religious scruples in ancient warfare,' CQ 36 (1986) 151–71.

  Greenhalgh, P.A.L. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages (Cambridge, England, 1973).

  Greger, M. Schildformen und Schildschmuck bei den Griechen (Berlin, 1908).

  Gregoriandis, N. L'art de la guerre d'Homère à Alexandre le Grand (Paris, 1951).

  Griffith, G.T. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge, England, 1935).

  ——'Peltasts and the origins of the Macedonian phalanx,' in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F.Edson (Thessaloniki, 1981).

  Grundy, G.B. Thucydides and the History of his Age (2 vols, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1911).

  Hackett, J.H. (ed.) A History of War in the Ancient World (London, 1989).

  Hagemann, A. Griechische Panzerung (Leipzig, 1919).

  Hammond, N.G.L 'The main road from Boeotia to the Peloponnese through the Northern Megarid,' BSA 49 (1954): 103–22.

  ——'Training in the use of the sarissa and its effect in battle,' Antichthion 14: (1980) 53–63.

  Hanson, V.D. Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (Pisa, 1983).

  ——'Epameinondas, the battle of Leuktra (371 BC) and the 'revolution' in Greek battle tactics,' CA 7.2 (1988) 190–207.

  ——The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (New York, 1989).

  Harmand, J. La guerre antique (Paris, 1973).

  Hellström, P. 'A Corinthian bronze helmet,' BMNE 19 (1984) 49–56.

  Hill, D.K. 'Early Italian Armor at Vassar College,' AJA 86 (1982) 589–91.

  Hoffman, H. Early Cretan Armorers (Mainz, 1972).

  Holladay, A.G. 'Hoplites and heresies,' JHS 102 (1982) 94–104.

  Humble, R. Warfare in the Ancient World (London, 1980).

  Jameson, M.H. 'The provisions for mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles,' Historia 12 (1963) 385–494.

  Köchly, H.A.T. and Rüstow, W. Geschichte des Griechischen Kriegswesen (Arav, 1852).

  Krentz, P. 'The nature of hoplite battle,' CA 4 (1985a) 50–61.

  ——'ZCasualties in hoplite battles,' GRBS 26 (1985b) 13–20.

  Kromayer, J. and Veith, G. Antike Schlachtfelder vols 1–4 (1902–1924).

  ——'Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer' in W.Otto (ed.) Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft IV 3 (2nd edn, Munich, 1928).

  Kukahn, E. Der griechischen Helm (Marburg, 1936).

  Kunze, E. V.-VIII. Berichte Uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin, 1956–67).

  Kunze, E. and Schleif, H. II.-III. Berichte Uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 53 (Berlin, 1938) and 56 (Berlin, 1941).

  Lammert, F. 'Schild', 'Schlachtordnung' RE Ser. 2 Vol. 2A.1 (1921).

  ——'Synaspismos' RE Ser. 2 Vol. 4A.2 (1932).

  ——'Phalanx,' RE 19.2 (1938).

  Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirkichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios (Zetemata 66, Munich, 1977).

  Lawrence, A.W. Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford, 1979).

  Lazenby, J.F. The Spartan Army (Warminster, England, 1985).

  Lazzarini, M.L. 'Le formul
e delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica,' Memorie delta Classe di Scienze morale e storiche dell'Accademia dei Lincei, 19 (Rome, 1976) 47–354.

  Lengauer, W. Greek Commanders in the 5th and 4th Centuries BC: Politics and Ideology, A Study of Militarism (Varsovie, 1979).

  Lippelt, O. Die griechische Leichtbewaffneten bis auf Alexander dem Grossen (Jena, 1910).

  Lippold, G. Griechische Schilde (Berlin, 1909).

  Lonis, R. 'Les usages de la guerre entre Grecs et Barbares' Annales littéraires de I'Université de Bescançon 104 (Paris, 1969).

  ——'Guerre et religion en Grèce à I'époque classique' Annales Littéraires de I'Université de Besançon 238 (Paris, 1979).

  Lorimer, H.L. 'The hoplite phalanx,' BSA 42 (1947) 76–138.

  ——Homer and the Monuments (London, 1950).

  McCredie, J.R. 'Fortified military camps in Attica,' Hesperia Supplement 11 (Princeton, 1966).

  McLeod, W. 'The Bowshot at Marathon,' JHS 90 (1970) 197–8.

  McNicoll, A. 'Some developments in Hellenistic siege warfare with special reference to Asia Minor,' Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology: 1973 I (3 vols, Ankara, 1978): 405–20.

  Manti, P.A. 'The cavalry sarissa' AW 8 (1983).

  Markle, M. 'The Macedonian sarissa, spear, and related armor,' AJA 81: (1977) 323–30.

  ——'Use of the sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon,' AJA 82: (1978) 483–97.

  Marsden, F.W. Greek and Roman Artillery (2 vols Oxford, 1969, 1971).

  Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford, 1988).

  Nierhaus, R. 'Eine frühgriechische Kampfform,' Jdl 53 (1938) 90–113.

  Nilsoon, M.P. 'Die Hoplitentaktik und das Staatswesen,' Klio 22: (1929) 240–9.

  Ober, J. 'ZEdward Clark's ancient road to Marathon, AD 1801' Hesperia 51: (1982) 453–8.

  ——Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404–322 BC (Leiden, 1985a).