To be fair, he isn't saying that phalanxes stopped being used, only that the large citizen armies of ancient Greece became less common, being replaced by smaller professional forces of hoplites and mercenaries. As far as I'm aware that's pretty much true.

Reply

Khelvan

Iphikratean reform is even more un-like the Marian than you suggest, seeing as it’s basically a fantasy.
Epaminondas used hoplites. There is no evidence to suggest he changed any of their gear or their spears. The linothorax had been in use by hoplites since at least the mid-5th century. If by Bulky helmet you mean the iconic Corinthian, it too was largely abandoned before the 4th century for various helmets that addressed its deficiencies. The whole reform ideal rests on vague and late Roman era historians. There is no solid reference in a period historian, pictorial representations, attic orator, or official inscriptions. I don’t deny peltasts and other light infantry was not used more often and more effectively during and after the 4th century, just that the Hoplite changed in any significant way.

I find the Iphikratean hoplite as usually described is also difficult to accept as effective. The longer spear (closer to the Macedonian sarissa than to a hoplite spear) would be unwieldy at best with only one hand. The smaller shield undermines the shield wall effect provided by ‘hoplon’ aspis. Whatever maneuverability was gained with lighter gear seems likely to have been undermined by the complexity of maneuvering a pike with only one hand. Overall, I see an ideal that was neither fish nor fowl, losing the advantages of the hoplite system without the benefits of the Macedonian system.

“Galatian influence of the 290's led to changing the shield to the lighter thureos.”

The thureos may have become popular for light infantry, but I don’t think you can view at part of the kit of troops considered to be ‘Heavy Infantry’
When Philopoemen reformed the Achaean army, he was explicitly rejecting the model of Aratus; light troops, with thureos, and for want of a better word irregular guerrilla tactics. Philipoemon, wanted to win decisive set-piece battles, so he equipped his army with heavy armor and abandoned the light thureos shield for the heavy aspis.

Reply

You keep using Iphikratean... That's a term I used for a while, but the word 'reformed hoplite' is probably a better one. The thureos was clearly used by the heavy phalanx infantry. Several Rhodian and Hallicarnasian (Dionysos, for one) historians of the period clearly state this. It also appears on Athenian and Rhodian pottery. The shield was lighter, but larger and more protective. The lengthening of the spears was a natural result of fighting macedonians. Remember, the traditional hoplite spear was about 9' long. The spears were lengthened to about 12-13' in the period. This makes the underhand stab the preferred control method, but it's certainly not unwieldy enough to merit 2 hands, like a 18-20' long pike.

The Thureos is a large sheild as well, actually longer and just as wide as the hoplon. The difference is between the plywood and metal construction versus solid bronze. The ubiquitous attic style helmet (or Thracian) is used regularly in this period.

We're not talking about a 'revolutionary reform', merely a 'refinement reform'.

Reply

Urnamma

I just don’t see the evidence for hoplites using longer spears for Hoplites in the 4th or 3rd centuries BC (aside from the alleged Iphikratean reforms). Why would a 12 ft spear be any better then an 8 or 9ft spear as a response to the Macedonian pikes? Also an underarm thrust style with such a long spear seems likely to be as hazardous to you own rear ranks as the enemy. The response to the Macedonian system was rather to improve hoplite training, and/or adopt the Macedonian system, keeping only a core of ‘select’ hoplites (presumably to fill the same role as hypaspists).

“The Thureos is a large sheild as well, actually longer and just as wide as the hoplon. The difference is between the plywood and metal construction versus solid bronze. The ubiquitous attic style helmet (or Thracian) is used regularly in this period.”

I’m not so sure you can always characterize the Greek use of the ‘Thureos’
To be suggesting a heavy scutum-like shield. In general the name simply seems to have become for describing a largish oval shield; sometimes meaning a heavy shield, at other times being used to describe what was really an oval-shaped pelta.

I do realize that the heavy Thureos was used, but I don’t really see some kind of general gradual shift to longer spears, lighter armor, and the heavy Thureos. A Thureos, roughly as large an aspis seems more like a change of taste (for a heavily armored spearman), than a reform or significant alteration in kit weight. Analogously the abandonment of the Corinthian helmet for any of the later styles is significant. Clearly Hoplites wanted or needed better visibility, and hearing, and felt some sacrifices in completeness of protection were worth it. But the choice of Boeotian, Thracian, Attic or Chalcidian looks more like fashion or tradition (assuming of course the hat types have check pieces), not functionality.

The hoplon was not solid bronze but mostly wood (a wooden block hollowed out on a lathe, into a bowl shape) with a bronze face and rim. The bronze bits were also removable, thus the Spartans did not store the bonze pieces with the shields to minimize the risk of their Helots seizing the fully functional shield.

Reply

Read Diadoros and Nepos. Some Hoplites did indeed remain in the traditional manner (with the round shield) (though almost always with underhand spears, except in the case of the heavily armored ones). A large amount of evidence for this comes from the hoplites on Sicily, who did not adopt the new shields, but rather adopted the longer spears, to counter the Carthaginians.

Those that did indeed change to the new and large thureos were the more 'revolutionary' of the Greek cities. Rhodes is a prime example. Agathocles of Hallicarnassos as well mentions the use of these shields. In regards to the underhand spear usage being 'illogical', think of the Macedonian phalanx. A similar system, albeit with one hand rather than two, was developed. These hoplites would have been quite useful against their macedonian counterparts because their spears and shields allowed them to be more mobile. Generally, the lighter infantry would tackle the phalanx, where these men would hold the cavalry at bay. It worked rather well.

Indeed, you are correct in your assumption about the hypaspistai role, but only partially. Some hoplites fought in this manner, but the key word here is specialization.

Reply

Urnamma:

I have read C. Nepos and Diodorus (of course now we are back to the Iphicrates’ reform).

The problem with both is that they are late historians, and hardly considered the A team of ancient historians at that (and neither have as far as I know the military experience of say Arrian to add credibility to their statements with respect to military equipment). Diodorus often gets an overly bad rap, but he remains a somewhat careless compressor of earlier historians and lacks the critical judgment of a Polybius or even Plutarch. Nepos is of course a writer of biography, not history, and is both sloppy and inaccurate to boot.

Taking Nepos for example: He presents in very brief form (a couple of lines) the ideal that Iphicrates carried out a reform of some kind on troops under his command. However he appears to have both a confused understanding of what kind of shield these troops had and what armor they wore (note references to mail, etc.) He is clear on suggesting a doubling of the spear. If you think he means hoplites then he is suggesting not a 12 ft spear but a Macedonian style pike. Lost in all of this is the fact that neither Nepos nor Diodorus appears to be suggesting this ‘reform’ applied to any thing but Ipricatrates’ troops. The Epaminondas section of Plutarch’s “Saying of Kings and Commanders” provides a rather strong counter to the ideal that Ipricatrates’ reforms were anything but a local and singular (or at most limited) occurrence.

My reservations steam from the fact that the alleged reform either gradual or Iphicrateian rely on these late sources (there is a tendency to call Nepos period, but that makes me a period source for the American Revolt from Great Britain). No new hoplite type appears on grave stele or pottery images. No fragment from the acropolis at Athens suggest the “Council and the People decreed 5000 of the new type of spear should be purchased by the officials in charge of the public arms and stored ….” No Attic Orator suggests that he participated in such and such battle armed in the modern fashion. Xenophon does not mention any new style of equipment (contra Thucydides who notes how the Athenian navy fought in a modern fashion, while Corinth and the other Peloponnesians fought in the old fashion way). Also, I don’t see why Hoplite would need to light any more than they had. The mostly Hoplite armies of the 5th century had demonstrated they were the masters of Persian light infantry, cavalry and archers. In the famous Athenian victories (light infantry over Spartans), what is generally ignored is that the Athenians also deployed Hoplite forces in those victories of at least (if not greater) strength than the Spartans. Contrast that with the inability of light troops deployed in isolation (even thiose commanded by Iphicrates) to ever close the isthmus to Epaminodas and his hoplites. Epaminondas clearly learned the right lesson; not I need lighter Hoplites, but rather just bring my own peltasts and cavalry…

I would suggest the Both Diodorus and Nepos do indeed provided evidence of a reform; but one that involved improving peltasts from pure skirmisher to multi-faceted light to medium infantry. Hoplites remained much as they were in the 5th century and continued to be heavy infantry. As for spear length I would not be surprised if they are not simply projecting the Macedonian style pike backward in time.

Reply

Hmm I lost about half my post on cut and past..


To continue:

I am sorry but I can’t think of an example of the tactical system you suggest. Best as I can see, In the 4th,3rd and 2nd centuries Greeks (and Macedonians) countered heavy infantry (phalanx troops either Hoplite style or Mac style ) with heavy infantry: Second Mantinea, Second Chaeronea, Raphia, Third Mantinea, Sallasia, etc. In each of these battles Phalanx faces phalanx; not light infantry or cavalry pin phalanx.

Rhodes is near and dear to by heart (only after Athens). However, the last independent Greek democracy was famous for a lot of things, but not the prowess of it’s army (at least with respect to offensive land campaigns). Also I think the thureos is a bit of a distraction. As I noted earlier the Greek usage is hardy precise, thus Plutarch used the word to describe what is in effect a light pelta style shield. But lets, ignore that and assume a large wooden shield (of Roman/Celtic scutum like dimensions, with a metal boss and rim), you are talking about a shield just as heavy if not heavier than an Argive aspis (hoplon), how is this a indication of a light Hoplite?

Reply