It seems some months since we argued about hoplites, so I thought I'd I'd raise this conference piece (https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/phalanx-fallacies-ways-forward-study-ancient-greek-warfare/) from 2014 mentioned in Sean Manning's blog.
Josho Brouwers goes in hard (straight to othismos?) and the sound of the boot hitting Hanson's body is almost palpable.
Further browsing of this site led me to a recent article (April 2020) by Browers on the Chigi Vase (https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/chigi-vase/) which is also worth a read.
I like Brouwers, he talks of the Graeco Anatolian 'koine'.
I would still subscribe, though, to the idea that Greek mercenaries were hired in large numbers because they were very effective fighters. I see them as the Swiss of their time and employers were not hiring Swiss to make up the numbers.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on May 09, 2020, 02:39:15 PM
I would still subscribe, though, to the idea that Greek mercenaries were hired in large numbers because they were very effective fighters.
Roy
The idea it was just about cannon fodder is a bit of a kneejerk I think. They were hired because they had things that locals didn't have. We might reject any technological determinist argument but it doesn't cover off all the other angles, like experience or skill or operational efficiency.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 09, 2020, 02:56:58 PM
Quote from: aligern on May 09, 2020, 02:39:15 PM
I would still subscribe, though, to the idea that Greek mercenaries were hired in large numbers because they were very effective fighters.
Roy
The idea it was just about cannon fodder is a bit of a kneejerk I think. They were hired because they had things that locals didn't have. We might reject any technological determinist argument but it doesn't cover off all the other angles, like experience or skill or operational efficiency.
Certainly they had the advantage of all mercenaries, they were unlikely to get mixed up in local politics and tended to be loyal so long as they were paid
Though didn't Xenophon's mercenaries turn down an offer of better pay in order to stay loyal?
Roy
Difficult to argue with since I think Brouwers is basically right. Plus how can anyone argue with the characterisation of "Victor Davis Hanson's 1989-abomination, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece".
The question of what if anything made Greek infantry different from non-Greek infantry is the key one (we had a long thread on it here a few years ago), and I hope that all the usual old answers ('the Greeks were real men', 'the Greeks wore bronze armour', 'the Greeks knew how to stand close together', 'the Greeks didn't fight, they pushed') have been thoroughly discredited, but they haven't yet been replaced by anything more plausible (given that I don't think 'nothing' is a good answer either). I have some thoughts which will appear in print in the not too distant future I hope (nothing very startling TBH).
Quote from: aligern on May 09, 2020, 06:47:57 PM
Though didn't Xenophon's mercenaries turn down an offer of better pay in order to stay loyal?
Roy
I think you're correct Roy about the 10,000. I would also point out that the Greek mercenaries hired by Darius III remained loyal despite his ineptitude as a commander. They even tried to warn Darius about the plot to depose him by his "loyal" Persian nobles. Admittedly, the mercenaries were probably also motivated by a hatred of Alexander and Macedonians, but they honor their commitment to Darius.
it's a very good article/conference piece. Hardly groundbreaking for me as I certainly ascribe to the holistic approach. I think however it is a very succinct and thought provoking piece which whets the appetite for further discourse and debate
Quote from: RichT on May 09, 2020, 07:14:55 PM
Difficult to argue with since I think Brouwers is basically right. Plus how can anyone argue with the characterisation of "Victor Davis Hanson's 1989-abomination, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece".
Which characterisation? In the vase article, he just says, Hanson offered, "nothing new."
Quote from: Erpingham on May 09, 2020, 01:56:49 PM
Further browsing of this site led me to a recent article (April 2020) by Browers on the Chigi Vase (https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/chigi-vase/) which is also worth a read.
I didn't like this article much.
His first paragraph of argument is - its not a photograph.
And then he argues in the opposite direction in the very next paragraph.??
Quote from: RichT on May 09, 2020, 07:14:55 PM
'the Greeks were real men'
Of course, if the Greeks truly believed that to be the case, while truly believing that the Persians were effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then that would give them a definite advantage whether it was true or not.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys
quote of the year! ;D
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 09, 2020, 07:14:55 PM
'the Greeks were real men'
Of course, if the Greeks truly believed that to be the case, while truly believing that the Persians were effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then that would give them a definite advantage whether it was true or not.
...' effeminate TROUSER-WEARING surrender-monkeys...'....in fact...😶🇬🇷
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 09, 2020, 07:14:55 PM
'the Greeks were real men'
Of course, if the Greeks truly believed that to be the case, while truly believing that the Persians were effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then that would give them a definite advantage whether it was true or not.
But surely this would only be true if the Persians held the same belief? If the Persians felt they were real men, there would be a mismatch in expectations and the issue would be in doubt.
Quote from: Martin Smith on April 03, 2021, 10:11:54 AM
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 09, 2020, 07:14:55 PM
'the Greeks were real men'
Of course, if the Greeks truly believed that to be the case, while truly believing that the Persians were effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then that would give them a definite advantage whether it was true or not.
...' effeminate TROUSER-WEARING surrender-monkeys...'....in fact...😶🇬🇷
;D
Quote from: Erpingham on April 03, 2021, 10:25:29 AM
But surely this would only be true if the Persians held the same belief? If the Persians felt they were real men, there would be a mismatch in expectations and the issue would be in doubt.
True, but you can never be worse off by the rank and file believing you can win. Well except in those instances where the rank and file were so convinced of winning that they persuaded a general to attack despite their personal judgement.
I was put in mind of the disasters which can occur if commanders allow their national stereotypes/myths to affect their tactical decisions. Take, for example, the "furia francese" and the French approach to infantry combat in 1914.
It's always dangerous when one starts to believe one's own propaganda... :(
Yup. I'm reminded of the 'these Sigmas will deceive you' story:
"But Pasimachus, the Lacedaemonian commander of horse, at the head of a few horsemen, when he saw the Sicyonians hard pressed, tied his horses to trees, took from the Sicyonians their shields, and advanced with a volunteer force against the Argives. The Argives, however, seeing the Sigmas upon the shields, did not fear these opponents at all, thinking that they were Sicyonians. Then, as the story goes, Pasimachus said: 'By the twin gods, Argives, these Sigmas will deceive you' and came to close quarters with them; and fighting thus with a few against many he was slain, and likewise others of his party." Xen. Hell. 4.4.10
Pasimachus supposed that the Argives, not knowing they were fighting Spartan Übermenschen, would be unpleasantly surprised to discover they were, but in fact it worked the other way - the Argives, not knowing they were supposed to lose, won.
There's a nice post on this and related matters in the 'Pelennor fields' blog somebody (Mike in fact) linked to earlier - "the magic was never in the Spartan, it was in the image of Sparta that lived in the mind of his opponent" (https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/). (I think he slightly overstates the case, but only slightly).
Agreed. Spartans were living rent fee in most Greek generals and soldiers minds for a long time
There is also some evidence that at some of the Spartans had a more realistic view of their martial ability. Consider Demaratos' reply to Xerxes when when discussing the fighting ability and willingness to resist of the Spartans.
"I do not claim to have the ability myself to fight ten men at once, or even two, and I would not fight even one in a duel if I had the choice. But if I were compelled or urged on by some great challenge, I would indeed take the utmost pleasure in fighting one of those men who say that he by himself is equal to three Hellenes. The Lacedaemonians are in fact no worse than any other men when they fight individually, but when they unite and fight together, they are the best warriors of all."
Herodotus, The Histories, 7.103-104
It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on April 03, 2021, 08:56:52 PM
It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.
true....he doubled guessed the situation. Had he just lined up with lambdas on his shields he would have found his opponents less willing to fight
Quote from: RichT on April 03, 2021, 06:00:06 PM
There's a nice post on this and related matters in the 'Pelennor fields' blog somebody (Mike in fact) linked to earlier - "the magic was never in the Spartan, it was in the image of Sparta that lived in the mind of his opponent" (https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/). (I think he slightly overstates the case, but only slightly).
I think he's slightly misinterpreted his stats. A 50:50 win/loss record doesn't indicate that you were no better than your opponents, because the record doesn't (as several commenters note) include those battles where one side thought they had no chance, and avoided the battle altogether. If Sparta's opponents thought the Spartans were good, then they'd try and avoid battle unless there were other things (e.g. numbers, location) to make up for it.
So a 50:50 win ratio is probably a better indication that the Spartans were roughly as good as their opponents expected them to be. Which if you believe that an army is largely as good as its opponents expects it to be (see shields without lambdas), then it's not that surprising a result!
I would suggest three things about the Spartans:
1. They didn't fight outnumbered unless they were led by an idiot like Pasimachus. Most Spartan armies were largely made up of non-Spartan allies who buffed up their numbers. Spartans were smart enough to know they had to take on enemies at least on a rough 1:1 basis.
2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.
3. They were drilled troops. This meant they could execute battlefield manoeuvres that citizen hoplites could not, especially their special favourite one of enveloping an enemy flank. They could also respond to sudden threats. They were a lot like legionaries in this regard, Caesar's troops for instance, who were always able to react effectively to an unexpected surprise. Being drilled also meant they had strong sense of unit cohesion. A Spartan hoplite would not panic so long as his unit remained together and this cohesion made it very difficult to shatter a Spartan unit in battle.
Other professional Greek hoplites - the epilektoi - were as good as Spartans which showed the latter were not supermen.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on April 03, 2021, 08:56:52 PM
There is also some evidence that at some of the Spartans had a more realistic view of their martial ability. Consider Demaratos' reply to Xerxes when when discussing the fighting ability and willingness to resist of the Spartans.
"I do not claim to have the ability myself to fight ten men at once, or even two, and I would not fight even one in a duel if I had the choice. But if I were compelled or urged on by some great challenge, I would indeed take the utmost pleasure in fighting one of those men who say that he by himself is equal to three Hellenes. The Lacedaemonians are in fact no worse than any other men when they fight individually, but when they unite and fight together, they are the best warriors of all."
Herodotus, The Histories, 7.103-104
It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.
This reminds me of Napoleon's comment on his cavalry: "Two Mamelukes held three Frenchmen; but one hundred French cavalry did not fear the same number of Mamelukes; three hundred vanquished the same number; one thousand French beat fifteen hundred Mamelukes. Such was the influence of tactics, order and maneuver."
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 06, 2021, 03:57:21 PM
2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.
To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves made a living for him?
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 05, 2021, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 06, 2021, 03:57:21 PM
2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.
To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves made a living for him?
We tend to think of fighting in Antiquity in terms of elaborate swordplay (a must in Hollywood to stretch out the action sequences). But hoplites didn't do swordfighting. If they were trained professionals they could do all sorts of manoeuvres and formation changes that citizen hoplites could not. Their professional cohesion meant they could not be easily panicked. "Swordfighting" meant they stabbed their opponents at close quarters with a small sword or knife. It didn't require much skill. The non-professionals were generally artisans or workers of some kind, which meant their trades kept them in reasonable physical trim. People used their muscles in those days, before cars and automation were invented.
Quote
To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves made a living for him?
There's no simple answer to that as it depends on the hoplite, on the city, on the date, on the particular circumstances and on who you ask.
The ideal was that all hoplites would as you say be down the gym or discussing philosophy and politics with their equals. The reality was that hoplites were a more socially and economically mixed lot than that.
Quote
The non-professionals were generally artisans or workers of some kind, which meant their trades kept them in reasonable physical trim.
Perhaps, though:
'to be sure, the illiberal arts [handicrafts, artisanry], as they are called, are spoken against, and are, naturally enough, held in utter disdain in our states. For they spoil the bodies of the workmen and the foremen, forcing them to sit still and live indoors, and in some cases to spend the day at the fire. The softening of the body involves a serious weakening of the mind. Moreover, these so-called illiberal arts leave no spare time for attention to one's friends and city, so that those who follow them are reputed bad at dealing with friends and bad defenders of their country. In fact, in some of the states, and especially in those reputed warlike, it is not even lawful for any of the citizens to work at illiberal arts.' (Xenophon, Economics 4.2-3)
On the other hand:
'And when, thus conditioned, the rulers and the ruled are brought together on the march, in wayfaring, or in some other common undertaking, either a religious festival, or a campaign, or as shipmates or fellow-soldiers or, for that matter, in actual battle, and observe one another, then the poor are not in the least scorned by the rich, but on the contrary, do you not suppose it often happens that when a lean, sinewy, sunburnt pauper is stationed in battle beside a rich man bred in the shade, and burdened with superfluous flesh, and sees him panting and helpless - do you not suppose he will think that such fellows keep their wealth by the cowardice of the poor, and that when the latter are together in private, one will pass the word to another "our men are good for nothing"?' (Plato, Republic 9 556c-d)
There is no single simple answer.
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2021, 02:22:25 PMThere is no single simple answer.
One simplish answer: put the lean, sinewy, sunburnt paupers in the front to do the actual fighting whilst the rich men bred in the shade and burdened with superfluous flesh take up the prestigious post of file closers and supply managerial oversight.
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 05, 2021, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 06, 2021, 03:57:21 PM
2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.
To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves made a living for him?
Given the amount of land you needed to be a hoplite I think the assumption is that many of them worked 'with' their slaves
You only needed a wheat yield of eight tons to be a hoplite
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 05, 2021, 03:46:18 PM
You only needed a wheat yield of eight tons to be a hoplite
In what city, at what date, according to who? And what about the definitely non-land-owning hoplites?
I assume though that you are saying eight tons is not very much - I have no feel for how much wheat (or barley) eight tons is - presumably a smallholder rather than a big estate owner?
Quote from: RichT on May 05, 2021, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 05, 2021, 03:46:18 PM
You only needed a wheat yield of eight tons to be a hoplite
In what city, at what date, according to who? And what about the definitely non-land-owning hoplites?
I assume though that you are saying eight tons is not very much - I have no feel for how much wheat (or barley) eight tons is - presumably a smallholder rather than a big estate owner?
I did a slingshot article about it a while back (Food, land and fertility and the troops you can support.)
Basically the figures are Athenian, but it was very similar to the land holding allowed for Byzantine marines, two and a half times the size of the holding allowed for Thematic infantry and about two thirds what was allowed for Thematic cavalry.
We're perhaps talking of up to 100 acres, it would depend on yields and soil fertility, rainfall etc
I'm guessing Jim may be using the Solonic figures. The middle one of Solon's three property classes, the
zeugitai, required land that produced 200-300
medimnoi of grain. A
medimnos is a measure of volume, and according to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medimnos):
QuoteIt is difficult to ascertain how much a medimnos would have weighed. The weight of a medimnos is currently believed to be 40 kilograms of wheat, or 31 kg of barley.
8000 (200
medimnoi @ 40kg) kilos of wheat is 8.8 tons.
Of course there are some who don't believe that the
zeugitai property class has anything to do with the hoplite qualification (https://www.academia.edu/33191140/Okada_T_2017_Zeugitai_and_Hoplites_a_Military_Dimension_of_the_Solons_Property_Classes_Revisited_Japan_Studies_in_Classical_Antiquity_3_17_37).
Quote8000 (200 medimnoi @ 40kg) kilos of wheat is 8.8 tons.
US tons. Imperial tons and tonnes are more similar in weight, which maybe what Jim's source was using.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 05, 2021, 06:13:59 PM
I'm guessing Jim may be using the Solonic figures. The middle one of Solon's three property classes, the zeugitai, required land that produced 200-300 medimnoi of grain. A medimnos is a measure of volume, and according to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medimnos):
QuoteIt is difficult to ascertain how much a medimnos would have weighed. The weight of a medimnos is currently believed to be 40 kilograms of wheat, or 31 kg of barley.
8000 (200 medimnoi @ 40kg) kilos of wheat is 8.8 tons.
Of course there are some who don't believe that the zeugitai property class has anything to do with the hoplite qualification (https://www.academia.edu/33191140/Okada_T_2017_Zeugitai_and_Hoplites_a_Military_Dimension_of_the_Solons_Property_Classes_Revisited_Japan_Studies_in_Classical_Antiquity_3_17_37).
Yes and I might have tried to fiddle with the bushel weight of wheat to try and get it right for earlier varieties, I can no longer remember :-[
According to my computer it was 2009 when I wrote the article
Ah thanks - I thought probably Solonic classes. Just need to keep in mind that a statement like 'hoplites needed 8 tons' (or tonnes or whatever) covers a multitude of sins, including
- zeugitae are not necessarily equivalent to hoplite class
- this qualification applies only to Athens (and only a certain time in Athens) - other places and times varied
- this shows who could be conscripted as a hoplite - but not who could serve as a hoplite (volunteers could be all sorts)
Anyway, 2009! I no longer feel bad for not remembering the article...