Hoplites Outdated?

[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).

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.

[conon394]

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.

[conon394]

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?

[Urnamma]

The argive shield is made of solid bronze! The thureos, while just as large, was made of layered wood. Draw your own conclusions. I didn't say Rhodian land forces were very good, just that they were armed in a 'newer' fashion.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. These hoplites I speak of carry a large shield, greaves, helmets, and linen armor. What's not heavy about them? They simply weigh less than a fully armored hoplite bedecked in full bronze getup. I'm not saying they become light spearmen. They become lighter weight, but continue to fight as heavy phalanx infantry, albeit with a bit more agility!

Add to this, they keep the phalanx, but simply lengthen the spears a bit.

[conon394]

Urnamma

The aspis was most certainly not bronze. The only surviving example is from the excavations at Olynthus and it is clearly bronze rimmed with a residual wood core. The literary evidence supports this view as well. The telamon Macedonian shield was very likely often all bronze (see Asclepiodotus' description).

In addition the bronze face cover recovered from Athens (taken from one of the 200 or so aspis carried by the Spartans captured on Sphacteria) suggests a wood shield covered with a very thin sheet of bronze. Why make a cover sheet for a shield that was already all bronze?

[Urnamma]

You're right on that, I'd confused the two for a moment.

Still the average thureos weighed about 12-13 lbs and were made of plywood. The average aspis... 18-24. We can see the substantial difference in weight was consistent with 'lightening' the weight of the hoplite, but not lowering his defensive power.

[conon394]

Let's just make sure what we are talking about here are my views...

Aspis, the classic Hoplite shield: weight around 13 or 15 lbs. I think 18 lbs is too high and in any case lighter then the scutum.

Pelta, a wicker or light wood and hide shield.

Thureos, a word that clearly enters the Greek post the Celtic incursions. Used by late authors to describe almost any oval shield. Thus the oval pelta or even rimless plywood shield of a mercenary peltast could be a Thureos or something as heavy as a scutum (Celtic or Roman) used by late heavy infantry. In any a case the scutum is certainly as heavy if not heavier then the estimates for the aspis around 20 - 22 lbs.

My feeling is that in the second or first century if Greek heavily infantry adopted a thureos what is implied is a scutum like shield that may have been an improvement over the aspis, but not lighter. Other wise I think we are (in the 4th and 3rd centuries) more likely dealing with mercenaries using a cheap oval pelta or at best an oval plywood shield, men who should be considered peltasts, not really expected to stand against hoplites or Macedonian style phalanxes.

edit: rimless wood thureos might well weight only 12-13 lbs or even a bit less, but I think the men who used such a shield were not the Heavy infantry but the kind of medium to light infantry that fought on the flanks of the battle line, as at Sallasia for example.