I don't think we have had this article before :
The Face of Battle at Plataiai (https://www.academia.edu/77994737/The_Face_of_Battle_at_Plataiai) by Roel Konijnendijk and Paul M. Bardunias
Readers should be warned it does contain detailed discussion of othismos but, on the plus side, a lot of that has been discussed on this forum by Paul Bardunias himself.
Perhaps the most interesting bit for me was the idea that the Spartans at Plataea were more like the archaic hoplites in their tactics than the classic hyper-disciplined red and bronze steam roller we know and love.
A good read, with plenty to agree and disagree with.
An interesting analysis, quite van Weesian but not slavishly so. Thanks.
A very informative read, thank you.
That was a good read, and quite interesting. I probably misunderstood a fair bit of it, but it makes me wonder how to model that sort of formation on the table to see how it performs.
Yes, interesting chapter. I rather felt the two parts - the Konijnendijk part and the Bardunias part - didn't mesh together very much; there isn't really any scope for the crowd crush in Herodotus' account, as K understands it, so it felt a bit odd having it emphasised in the B part. Anyway, lots of familiar stuff and I found myself agreeing with much of it (but guess which bits I didn't...).
Thinking about this some more, I can accept and visualise the non-Spartan units with equal numbers of hoplites and light-armed attendants formed up behind them or even intermingled with them. But I can't visualise how a Spartan formation with seven times as many light-armed as hoplites would work at all. If the Spartans form "at least four shields deep" (or in a non-ranked formation averaging four deep), then you have twenty-eight helot light infantry behind each not-quite-a-file of hoplites. Is this really likely?
Yes, and the Problem of the Light Infantry at Plataea is at least as bad as the Problem of the Cavalry (which the article refers to but rather evades - the Problem of the Cavalry at Marathon, in contrast, has its own extensive literature). I haven't read any of the other chapters in that volume so don't know if any of them tackle it.
Four ranks of hoplites backed by 28 ranks of lights doesn't seem likely, no. But they (the lights) have to go somewhere, if we are to take Herodotus at his word, and putting them in huge (and completely passive and irrelevant) bodies on the flanks doesn't seem very likely either.
I'm inclined to suspect that our whole conception of what ancient armies and battles looked like might be out of whack. The neat blocks of ordered infantry, precisely eight (or n) ranks deep, marching about in perfect order, just doesn't fit (at least at this period, as the article suggests). If the Archaic originals of hoplite formations were large clouds of men in no particular formation or order, standing where they pleased, and with highly variable equipment, from the richest bronze-armoured promachoi showing off at the front to the lowliest stone-armed slave or near slave lurking at the back, then it all makes more sense. Depths (approximate, irregular depths) of 32 wouldn't be unlikely. The men at the back wouldn't be able to achieve very much, but then that's not their function (their function is everything that happens before and after the real close quarters fighting, including the cooking and cleaning). It's a big, deep, disorderly mob fronted by a relatively small number of well armed rich men.
The argument of the article is that this sort of thing was still common as late as the Persian Wars; I'm increasingly inclined to think it remained, if not the norm, at least not unknown, throughout, and not just among hoplites. This is perhaps how most ancient infantry looked.
To me, not knowing as much about this as some, I always seem to find more questions. For example, many tribal infantries would have men with varying levels of equipment so are we sure all the helots were javelin and rock throwers or have we imported that from elsewhere?
The article assumes the helots were integral with the hoplite units. Yet, the same article says we know nothing about where the helots were, just they were there in large numbers. Could they have stood on the sidelines (or the rear lines) waiting to take part in a pursuit and leave us with a fighting core of hoplites (albeit perhaps different to what we think of a Classical hoplites)?
And they were fighting primarily bow-armed Persian infantry. Now an early hoplite was probably pretty arrow proof but a man with some rocks and a cloak over his arm wasn't. If the helots were in the fighting line, shouldn't the sun-blocking volleys of the Persians have killed them in droves, undermining the Spartan war effort?
As I say, there always seem to be more questions.
Yes, always more questions.
Helot equipment - Herodotus does say they were 'equipped for war' which might imply something more than sticks and stones, but if so we don't know what (or rather, I don't). I suspect it just means light shields and weapons (javelins, some swords).
There are three options for the helots (and other lights): they were integral to the hoplite units but at the back; they were separate from the hoplite units and further back; or they were separate from the hoplite units and on the flanks. (Plus, they weren't there at all). Each option raises more questions. Some were killed at Plataea though, as they were buried there (as some were at Thermopylae, for all that nothing is ever said about them), so they were engaged somehow, whether as targets for Persian archery, or fighting more actively.
The problem is (as with all ancient battles) that our entire knowledge of Plataea consists of a few hundred words in Herodotus, yet this was a battle similar in terms of number of combatants and possibly ground covered to Waterloo (much bigger than Waterloo, if Herodotus' numbers are right). Imagine if our entire knowledge of Waterloo came from a few hundred words in a single author, one who wasn't greatly interested in military history, but liked a good tale, and we had to reconstruct the entirety of Napoleonic military organisation and tactics, as well as the events of the battle, just from that - how close to reality could we expect to be?
Quote from: RichT on May 24, 2022, 03:44:15 PMThere are three options for the helots (and other lights): they were integral to the hoplite units but at the back; they were separate from the hoplite units and further back; or they were separate from the hoplite units and on the flanks. (Plus, they weren't there at all).
Or that some were in one place and the rest in another.
I raise this not (just) to pick nits, but because Herodotos 7.229.1 could indicate that the Spartans at Thermopylai had the "usual" one helot attendant each. So there might have been a distinction between the hoplite's customary attendant, quite possibly a helot from his estate at home, and the other six, whose presence at Plataia may have been a unique measure; and so they could have deployed separately.
QuoteWhen Eurytus learned of the Persians circuit, he demanded his armor and put it on, bidding the helot to lead him to the fighting. The helot led him there and fled, but he rushed into the fray and was killed.
Nit fairly picked, and in fact they could have been all four (not the same ones of course). Most hoplites probably had an attendant (as Herodotus suggests, and as is known elsewhere). If all the Greeks were attended in the phalanx by their attendant, that reduces the unaccounted for LI from 69,5000 to 30,000 (a mere bagatelle).
One thought that occurs to me, and may or may not be relevant to this discussion, is that most of the Greek army at Plataea would have had no meaningful experience of fighting the Persians, save only for the Athenians and Plataeans who had fought at Marathon eleven years earlier - presumably quite a few veterans of that battle were also at Plataea.
Now, whatever one thinks of Herodotus' umpteen myriads (and yes, one presumes that the Greeks knew that Xerxes had taken a load home with him), the Greek perception may well have been that they would still be facing uncomfortable quantity odds, of unknown quality, in 479. Might even the most culturally arrogant Greek pondered in dark moments that this fight might not be quite what he was used to, compared to the recreational violent confrontations with neighbouring poleis?
Might this be a reason for abnormal force composition, even if, on the day of the race, they end up not having a terribly good idea of how to use some of the auxiliaries - or, when seeing the Persians actually formed up, decide that the good old hoplite might be enough anyway. (Not that the latter precludes the idea of more Archaic styles of "phalanx"...)
Quote from: RichT on May 24, 2022, 12:57:37 PM
I'm inclined to suspect that our whole conception of what ancient armies and battles looked like might be out of whack. The neat blocks of ordered infantry, precisely eight (or n) ranks deep, marching about in perfect order, just doesn't fit (at least at this period, as the article suggests). If the Archaic originals of hoplite formations were large clouds of men in no particular formation or order, standing where they pleased, and with highly variable equipment, from the richest bronze-armoured promachoi showing off at the front to the lowliest stone-armed slave or near slave lurking at the back, then it all makes more sense. Depths (approximate, irregular depths) of 32 wouldn't be unlikely. The men at the back wouldn't be able to achieve very much, but then that's not their function (their function is everything that happens before and after the real close quarters fighting, including the cooking and cleaning). It's a big, deep, disorderly mob fronted by a relatively small number of well armed rich men.
The argument of the article is that this sort of thing was still common as late as the Persian Wars; I'm increasingly inclined to think it remained, if not the norm, at least not unknown, throughout, and not just among hoplites. This is perhaps how most ancient infantry looked.
Indeed given that it was not uncommon for younger year groups of hoplites to run out of the phalanx to chase off light infantry I think we have to be more flexible about what a hoplite battle formation actually was.
A lot of hoplites might spend some of their time fighting in comparatively dispersed formations, as marines, or storming camps, supporting raids and similar.
Similarly in "The Rise of Persia and the First Greco-Persian Wars: The Expansion of the Achaemenid Empire and the Battle of Marathon" by Manousos E Kambouris, the author postulates that the 'charge' at Marathon had the youngest year groups who were more used to running in armour arriving first having covered the ground at speed to negate the missile fire, and then the rest of the phalanx jog up at a more sensible pace and fall in behind them.
It has occurred to me that with our discussions on othismos we might have overlooked the fact that it may have been possible but may also have been rare.
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 25, 2022, 09:26:57 AM
A lot of hoplites might spend some of their time fighting in comparatively dispersed formations, as marines, or storming camps, supporting raids and similar.
Yes indeed - the old orthodox idea still repeated eg in Schwarz, Reinstating, that hoplites were completely helpless and useless outside of a formed close order phalanx is or should be completely dead (yet, it keeps rising from the grave). I go on about this a bit in my, you know, book...
By no means an expert on the period under discussion so consider this thought in that light. I have more knowledge of 15th-18th century warfare. Two thoughts occur to me.
Flodden - the Scots, by the accounts I have read, consist of a more organised version of their typical tribal warfare (Laird turns up with a lightly armed retinue) in having dismounted nobles with state funded (very) good armour in the front rank of the phalanx and the rest in a very deep formation behind. The rear ranks won't have been full time professional soldiers, indeed for some of them it might be their very first experience of battle - "here hold that long thing and stand behind your local landowner". Else I can't see how such a large army is raised so quickly.
The French Revolution Demi-Brigades consisting of very large numbers of conscripts brigaded with regular line units.
I do wonder if the helots in such large numbers are operating in a similar way to these examples. Untrained/inexperienced men called up en masse. Armoured/trained men at the front, rear ranks helots, either in the same formation or brigaded together - "don't be scared, you are with those big brave Spartiates. Watch them they know what to do. Stick close and they will look after you".
(Rich - do you have a book out on the topic. You might have mentioned it...)
I expect the 'mass of indifferent types at the back to make up numbers' approach is quite common in military history, and in fact the 'thin red line' may be the exception, and a particular sign of quality. This is Phil Sabin's argument in LB, that lower quality forces tended to mass deep, so that numerically large armies didn't necessarily have greater frontage than small high quality ones.
Quote(Rich - do you have a book out on the topic. You might have mentioned it...)
Yeah I know, and honestly I hate self-promotion. Quite how some books become well known (example, Myke Cole's
Legion versus Phalanx, with 244 ratings on Amazon, others though niche rate surprisingly highly (example, author unspecified,
The Akkadian Empire: A Captivating Guide..., 21 ratings on Amazon), and others pass completely under the radar (example, Richard Taylor,
The Greek Hoplite Phalanx, 0 ratings on Amazon) is a mystery to me (and also apparently to Pen & Sword) (not such a mystery in Myke Cole's case of course as he's a Personality, almost a Celebrity, as well as writing well).
Embittered rant over. I may continue to slip in a mention of my book from time to time. Sorry!
One of the differences with the Scots is that the Scots are a fairly typical medieval host, with a range of men of various means turning up with the weapons they owned/ were obliged to have. Helots were a servile population who weren't allowed arms but could be armed in some way by the state. Hence my question earlier - what would they be given? They certainly wouldn't have even the training of a city militia hoplite, let alone a Spartan.
The thin line of hoplites with a mob of helots behind is OK in theory but how many decent ranks do you need? A minimum of two? That gives you 14 ranks of men who the authors suggest are armed with javelins and stones. Most couldn't play an active role if they wanted to.
The demi-brigade idea - with clumps of hoplites backed up by bigger separate masses of helots - is worth considering but helot only units would be very vulnerable to Persian shooting and they don't really have much motivation to take the punishment.
Or we might say there were helots with different roles, perhaps the military servant helots formed the "traditional" Archaic phalanx light component and a load of additional helots weren't actually in the fighting line at all.
As Richard has already said, we don't have a lot of evidence of what really went on. But it is fair to say that the abnormally high number of helots and what role they played is highlighted as a question by this paper, as is the idea we shouldn't assumed we are dealing with something as fully worked out as the later hoplite phalanx.
One interesting aspect that the authors mention, but not in detail, is Plato's dialogue Laches. Sean Manning, commented on this paper, quoted it. The key line (Socrates to Laches) is
Indeed they say that when the Spartans, at Plataea, came across the men with wicker shields (hoi gerrophoroi), they were not willing to remain in position and do battle with them, so they fled, but once the Persian ranks had broken, they turned around and fought, just as horsemen do, and so won the battle of Plataea.
So the Athenians preserved a tradition of a Spartan feigned flight. Now, it's a late source and may not be true but it does raise a question about the capabilities of a trained phalanx, other than drill movements and measured treads.
Quote
Hence my question earlier - what would they be given?
I refer you to my answer earlier - we don't know!
However, in the later period (Peloponnesian War), helots did apparently serve as hoplites - eg some with Brasidas' expedition, and some at First Mantinea (if that is what the Neodamodeis are), so it was not unthinkable (at least then) for Spartans to arm helots as hoplites (quite how this worked in practice - state-provided arms? masters arming their own? - we don't know). I doubt this is what happened with the helots at Plataea because there are so many of them - these later examples seem to be specially selected, modestly sized bodies, not a mass levy, and I don't suppose Sparta could run to 30,000 extra sets of hoplite equipment. Plus Spartans were so petrified of the helots that I don't believe they would ever want to arm them so well.
Where we have any hint at all of what helots or similar bodies of hangers-on were armed with, they are psiloi, or gymnetes, or sometimes peltasts - in all cases unarmoured, with either no shield or a small light shield, and javelins or stones (we can rule out bows as the Spartans at Plataea had to ask the Athenians for the loan of their archers, the only Greek archers present).
Bear in mind also that there was no uniform equipment even for Spartans (Spartiates and Perioikoi). They, like a medieval host, turned up with the weapons they owned, which (famously in the case of Spartans) might not be very much at all. The only absolutely required items were a shield (a proper aspis) and a spear. Spartans might add a pilos, which might still have been as originally a felt hat, not a helmet. Any armour above that was optional and on the basis of personal preference and means. So even a 'pure' phalanx would already be a mixed lot, perhaps with 'men of bronze' in the first rank or two shading off to unarmoured shield and spear men in the back ranks. They may also have been mixed as to class, if Spartiates and Perioikoi did serve together in the same units, which is unclear. So adding a crowd of psiloi to the back of that to shout and lob stuff and generally provide encouragement is not unthinkable, IMO. I don't think the hoplite element need have been especially shallow - eight ranks (for the sake of argument) of hoplites backed up by many more of psiloi seems plausible.
Quote
Or we might say there were helots with different roles, perhaps the military servant helots formed the "traditional" Archaic phalanx light component and a load of additional helots weren't actually in the fighting line at all.
Yes that's possible too. I don't really have a preferred version.
The 'fighting like horsemen' bit is another of the mysteries of Plataea. A similar story is told of Thermopylae. It's hard to see how this works with a traditional close order eight (or so) deep phalanx. It's even harder to see how it works with a phalanx with a mass of helots behind it. Should we see it as a formal drill manoeuvre in which, following a strict drill, a formed phalanx moves retrograde in face of the enemy? (cf. Chaeronea, in the traditional interpretation). Or should we see it as something more informal, as a loosely formed body of men fighting in a more 'dynamic stand-off' sort of way, ebbing and flowing? That's how I'd be inclined to read it. It's a perplexing business, and a discuss it a little bit in MY BLOODY BOOK!!! Yes I do!!!!!!
Quote from: Tim on May 26, 2022, 06:05:02 AM
The French Revolution Demi-Brigades consisting of very large numbers of conscripts brigaded with regular line units.
I do wonder if the helots in such large numbers are operating in a similar way to these examples. Untrained/inexperienced men called up en masse. Armoured/trained men at the front, rear ranks helots, either in the same formation or brigaded together - "don't be scared, you are with those big brave Spartiates. Watch them they know what to do. Stick close and they will look after you".
(Rich - do you have a book out on the topic. You might have mentioned it...)
Slave phalanxes were not unknown, fielded by at least Mithridates and the Achaeans, and the Spartans had their Neodamodeis. Whether all were freed before fighting or fought for their freedom may have varied. The Romans raised legion from slaves in the 2nd Punic war
Quote from: RichT on May 26, 2022, 11:32:33 AM
It's a perplexing business, and a discuss it a little bit in MY BLOODY BOOK!!! Yes I do!!!!!!
I wish I could afford your bloody book. I really do. :'(
Well it's £24 on P&S, or £18.75 on Amazon, hardback (about the price of ten toy soldiers, or five cavalry) (no doubt postage, customs etc will up that), or the Kindle edition (if you happen to have a Kindle) is £4.79 (about the price of a post-game pint). I don't know what financial position anyone is in of course - I'm grateful if any of their money comes my way. :)
Ooh I see Hoplites now has a rating and review on Amazon - thank you Lector! Much appreciated. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Sorry, I'm hijacking this thread, which was supposed to be about Plataea...
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 26, 2022, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: Tim on May 26, 2022, 06:05:02 AM
The French Revolution Demi-Brigades consisting of very large numbers of conscripts brigaded with regular line units.
I do wonder if the helots in such large numbers are operating in a similar way to these examples. Untrained/inexperienced men called up en masse. Armoured/trained men at the front, rear ranks helots, either in the same formation or brigaded together - "don't be scared, you are with those big brave Spartiates. Watch them they know what to do. Stick close and they will look after you".
(Rich - do you have a book out on the topic. You might have mentioned it...)
Slave phalanxes were not unknown, fielded by at least Mithridates and the Achaeans, and the Spartans had their Neodamodeis. Whether all were freed before fighting or fought for their freedom may have varied. The Romans raised legion from slaves in the 2nd Punic war
I'd rather formed the view that Mithridates slave phalanx was formed of men who had been recently enslaved and were liberated by him in his radical democrat phase rather than those born into it. Who ever they were the fought hard enough.
Also I'd note it took(out of our period) six weeks to train a light pike man and anything between 6 months and a couple of years to train a 'heavy' one depending on who you read. That makes me think that many/most of his slave phalanx had previous military experience.
Quote from: Anton on May 26, 2022, 08:33:10 PM
Also I'd note it took(out of our period) six weeks to train a light pike man and anything between 6 months and a couple of years to train a 'heavy' one depending on who you read. That makes me think that many/most of his slave phalanx had previous military experience.
Given that a lot of 'military' skills would be civilian skills, such as throwing javelins, and a lot of law was policed by the people involved, I think a high proportion of the population would have skills which were immediately transferrable.
Quote from: RichT on May 26, 2022, 03:51:31 PM
Well it's £24 on P&S, or £18.75 on Amazon, hardback (about the price of ten toy soldiers, or five cavalry) (no doubt postage, customs etc will up that), or the Kindle edition (if you happen to have a Kindle) is £4.79 (about the price of a post-game pint). I don't know what financial position anyone is in of course - I'm grateful if any of their money comes my way. :)
Ooh I see Hoplites now has a rating and review on Amazon - thank you Lector! Much appreciated. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Sorry, I'm hijacking this thread, which was supposed to be about Plataea...
OK so it's come out as an ebook - good, I can afford that.
And yes, it's very naughty of you to push your book on this thread, I wouldn't dream of blowing my trumpet for
Ancient Battle Formations (https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Battle-Formations-Justin-Swanton-ebook/dp/B08GCX6RC7). ::)
QuoteAnd yes, it's very naughty of you to push your book on this thread, I wouldn't dream of blowing my trumpet for Ancient Battle Formations. ::)
No, it wouldn't occur to you to promote Optio either :)
No complaints have been received by the moderators about self-promotion so far but , if taken to excess, I'm sure there will be. So, provided you don't overdo it, I think you're fine. It's good to have authors and researchers share their work here at the price of a little promotion for their wares, IMO.
It is a sad sign of how little I have been on here that I missed a whole thread about me. I'm linking to a presentation that I did at the Harvard Plataiai symposium last spring, which covers some of this: https://youtu.be/Sjypd4iSTnw
If any have specific questions, I would be happy to answer them. I see in the discussion you guy hit upon what I would have answered as to the 7 helots per Spartiate and how they could form behind. Assuming personal attendants and others may not have been equipped for battle, a smaller number of helots is easier to imagine. The other thing to consider is that the line is needed to form a barricade behind which the helots can shelter (as the front ranks of Maurice's folcum do for example, or the Persians for that matter), but the swarm of light troops can be really any distance from the line, running up and sheltering to throw things and then moving back out of range. This apparently is what even hoplites could do in Tyrtaios's day.
I walked the battlefield this summer and we marched the route the Spartans must have taken to their last position. I can tell you that if there were helots in the battle, they were behind the Spartiates, not on the flanks. There is simply no room for them on the hill. If you want to see some beautiful images of hoplites on the battlefield: https://plataea2022.com/thursday-morning-march/