A PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO THE HOPLITE DEBATE 1

Mike LallyFebruary 17, 2014

Empire State CollegeProfessor Denise Kawasaki

History of the Ancient Mediterranean

2

Since the establishment of a “hoplite orthodoxy” by George Grote in 1846 in his work: A

History of Greece, a great debate has been waged by supporters of the “grand narrative” of the

hoplite orthodoxy and those who seek to revise the thesis. Interestingly, both sides use the same

original source material and archaeological findings to support their positions.

I will explain both sides of the hoplite debate by briefly tracing each sides’ genesis and

current evolution. I will focus on the most current scholarly work from each side most notably

Victor Davis Hanson for the orthodoxy and Hans Van Wees for the revisionists. I will explain

and highlight the source material and artwork both camps reference. Lastly, I will suggest an

alternative approach that combines the work of Hanson and Van Wees and argue the term

“revolution” is where the two camps being to entrench. I believe there was a gradual but

continuously iterative change in hoplite arms, armor, adoption of the phalanx, an increase in

wealth, a rise of a middling or middle class farmer, improvements in farming techniques and

shifts from pasture farming to arable farming. The combination of these elements led to increases

in political power of a new economic class, the middling farmer, and a rise of the polis in

Ancient Greece.

For the purpose of this paper, I will accept the definition of the hoplite orthodoxy detailed

by Donald Kagan and Gregory F. Viggiano in their introductory chapter of Men of Bronze. The

orthodoxy defines the early Greek polis as the result of a sudden change or “revolution” in

military equipment and tactics which drove social and political “revolutions” in Greece. The

authors state, “A central part of the thesis is that the change in fighting style was directly related

to recent innovations in arms and armor. Second, the phalanx depended on the weight and the

cohesion of heavily armed men who employed “shock” tactics in brief but decisive battles.

3

Third, it has been critical to identify the greatest number of hoplites with a middling group

within the polis, which had the wealth to provide its own arms. Fourth, this middling group

transformed Greek values.” (Kagan and Viggiano 2013, 1).

It is curious and somewhat frustrating that historians and archaeologists on both sides of

the orthodox debate reference the same source material in support of their arguments. They use

Herodotus’ speech to Xerxes from General Mardonis’; Thucydides’ description of the Battle of

Mantinea and Tyrtaeus’ military elegies to the Spartans. Both sides also reference the fighting

style present in Homer’s Iliad to show the contrast between one on one battles between Heroic

champions or duels of the Archaic Period versus the style of massed, close order formations in

the Classical Period.

The hoplite orthodoxy use Homer to show a clear break-point from a Heroic style of

fighting as illustrated in one on one duels between champions to a more massed formation i.e.

hoplite style of fighting. Homer describes massed fighting in Book 13. “Here were the best

picked men detached in squads to stand the Trojan charge and shining Hector: a wall of them

bulked together, spear-by-spear, shield-by-shield, helm-to-helm, man-to-man massed tight and

the horsehair crests on glittering helmet horns brushed as they tossed their heads, the battalions

bulked so dense, shoulder-to-shoulder close, and the spears they shook in daring hands packed

into jagged lined of battle - .” (Iliad 13.152-159). To argue against the existence of the phalanx,

the revisionists cite from Book 7: “He hurled – his spear’s long shadow flew and it struck Ajax’

shield, that awesome seven-layered buckler, right on the eighth, the outside layer of bronze that

topped it off, through six hides it tore but the seventh stopped the relentless brazen point.” (Illiad

7:286-290)

4

As mentioned above, Herodotus writes of a conversation between General Mardonis and

Xerxes in which Mardonis advises Xerxes on the fighting style of the Greeks: “And yet, I am

told, these very Greeks are wont to wage wars against one another in the most foolish way,

through sheer perversity and doltishness. For no sooner is war proclaimed than they search out

the smoothest and fairest plain that is to be found in all the land, and there they assemble and

fight; whence it comes to pass that even the conquerors depart with great loss : I say nothing of

the conquered, for they are destroyed altogether.” (Herodotus 7.9) The orthodox accept this as a

clear reference to hoplites and their tactics.

Thucydides provides a comprehensive view of hoplite battle in his descriptions of the

battle of Mantinea. The battle pitted Spartans against an alliance of Athens, Argos, Mantinea and

Elis in 418 BC. Thucydides describes the opposing sides marching across the battle field:

“After this they joined battle, the Argives and their allies advancing with haste and fury, the

Spartans slowly and to the music of many flute players – a standing institution in their army, that

has nothing to do with religion, but is meant to make them advance evenly, stepping in time,

without breaking their order, as large armies are apt to do in the moment of engaging.”

(Thucydides 5.70.2). The author continues, “All armies are alike in this: on going into action

they get forced out rather on their right wing, and one and the other overlap with this their

adversary’s left; because fear makes each man do his best to shelter his unarmed side with the

shield of the man next to him on the right, thinking that the closer the shields are locked together,

the better will he be protected.” (Thucydides 5.71.1)

The Spartan poet, Tyrtaeus, sings of the hoplite phalanx in his War Songs: “See, see,

dismayed, the phalanx of the foe turns round, and hurries o'er the plain afar: while doubling, as

afresh, the deadly blow, he rules, intrepid chief, the waves of war.” (Documents of the Hoplite

5

Revolution). And from his Spartan Creed, both sides in the debate reference the following

selections:

“For no man ever proves himself a good man in war unless he can endure to face the blood and the slaughter,

go close against the enemy and fight with his hands.”And:

“and it is a good thing his city and all the people share with himwhen a man plants his feet and stands in the foremost spearsrelentlessly, all thought of foul flight completely forgotten, and has well trained his heart to be steadfast and to endure,

and with words encourages the man who is stationed beside him. Here is a man who proves himself to be valiant in war.

With a sudden rush he turns to flight the rugged battalionsof the enemy, and sustains the beating waves of assault.”

And lastly:

“with wounds in his chest, where the spear that he was facing has transfixedthat massive guard of his shield, and gone through his breastplate as well,”

(The Norton Book of Classical Literature, 209).

There are many archaeological findings that both sides reference to support their

arguments on dating the hoplite revolution. In the case of the revisionists, they use the artwork to

prove a gradual adoption of the arms and armor of the hoplite. There is a Protocorinthian

aryballos from Perachora dated to around 650 BC. Lead figurines depicting Spartan hoplites

were found in a Santuary of Artemis Orthia which are dated from 700 to 635 BC. Lastly, there is

the Chigi Vase.

Discovered in 1881 in an Etruscan tomb, the Chigi

vase is believed to be from the period of 650 – 640 BC.

One of the friezes on the vase clearly depict a hoplite

battle. The painting shows two opposing sides meeting just

Figure 1 source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/images/gal_aow_chigi_vase.jpg

6

before the first clash or push or othismos, as Victor Davis Hanson’s refers to it, begins. The

orthodox supporters argue that the painting presents a strong case for revolution or “sudden

change.” The revisionist camps question the panoply. The hoplites carry two spears like a

Homeric fighter. Swords are not represented. The painting also raises questions about the ranking

of troops. It is not clear if the vase clearly shows a second rank or if the artist was simply trying

to indicate many troops.

A large focus of the orthodox view centers on the adoption of the large, double-grip

hoplite shield. This type of shield protected the wearer’s left side but exposed his right flank.

Thucydides refers to this when he writes about each man edging to the right as he marches to

protect that flank as much as possible. The adoption of the shield essentially forced the adoption

of the phalanx style of fighting. The phalanx was close-order, massed ranks of heavy infantry

smashing into each other in order to exploit a gap or break in the line of the enemy.

George Grote was the father of the Greek hoplite orthodox. Grote drew a distinction

between hoplites fighting in close-order battle and the heroes of Homer who generally fought at

long range. He referenced Thucydides’ Battle of Mantinea but did not feel Homer was relevant to

his argument. He argues that along with a revolution in military equipment and tactics there was

a civil revolution. Grote writes, “we pass from Herakles, Theseus, Jason, Achilles, to Solon,

Pythagoras, and Perikles – from the ‘shepherd of his people,’ (to use the phrase in which Homer

depicts the good side of the heroic king,) to the legislator who introduces, and the statesman,

who maintains, a pre-concerned system by which willing citizens consent to bind themselves.”

(Grote II, 107). Grote also pointed to an emergence and rise of a new social-class – the “middling

farmer.”

7

In 1947, H.L. Lorimer, in her book, The Hoplite Phalanx with Special Reference to the

Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus, fully formed the Hoplite orthodox according to Kagan and

Viggiano. The emergence of the hoplite shield with a central arm band (porpax) and hand grip

(antilabe) caused an immediate change in tactics. This new type of double-grip shield required

the tactics of a close formation. Lorimer based her thesis on the paintings on the Chigi vase.

Two books written by Victor Davis Hanson analyze the orthodox side of the hoplite

debate: The Western Way of War and The Other Greeks. In The Western Way of War, Hanson

contemplates the change in fighting style from the Homeric age to the hoplite age. He agrees that

hoplites were middling farmers and were fighting for and over farmland. They needed to protect

the crops. Hanson takes it a step further, “The rationale of Greek battle between heavy infantry of

the classical period cannot be that it was preventative to agricultural catastrophe but, rather, we

must consider that it arose as a provocation or reaction to the mere threat of farm attack.”

(Hanson 1989, 4).

Hanson supports the idea that the new arms and armor of the hoplite mandated the need

for the tactical phalanx. He argues against the revisionist idea of loosely formed troops that used

their new shield to protect their right sides. To Hanson, the tactic was to smash a line of heavily

armed men into the enemy’s line of similarly equipped infantry and achieve a push back or

develop a tear in the enemy’s ranks. He presents four reasons why the first seconds of an ancient

Greek battle resulted in a collision of soldiers running at each other. First, the men had no choice.

Eight (at least) ranks of heavily armored men on the run creates its own momentum. If you stop,

you will be trampled by the men behind you. Second, the double-grip shield provided a very

strong sense of safety. Hanson quotes Tyrtaeus regarding the safety of the shield – “his chest and

his shoulders under the hollowed-out protection of his broad shield. (Tyrtaeus 11.24). Third, a

8

possibility existed of missing an enemy’s shield and penetrating a small gap. This would give the

hoplite the opportunity to get into the deeper ranks and cause mayhem. Lastly, there was the

thought that the individual hoplite was running, smashing and pushing with people he knew. He

stood in the line with his neighbor and brother. He could not let the group down.

One of the most debated ideas that Hanson presents considers what happened after the

initial clash of troops. He writes, “the initial collision of men and subsequent hand-to-hand

fighting soon gave way to the othismos, the “push” of shields, as one side eventually achieved a

breakthrough, allowing its troops to force their way on into and through the enemy’s phalanx.”

(Hanson 1989, 169). Revisionists debate the existence of othismos and contend that fighters

stood closer to 6 feet apart versus the tightly packed three feet needed for the linkage on shields

presented by the phalanx. Hanson cites many ancient sources who wrote of the “push” including

Xenophon, Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, Arrian, Plutarch and more. Hanson cites

Thucydides summarizing hoplite battle as a “push of shields” (Thucydides 4.96.2) (Hanson

1989, 173).

Hanson feels that the real social, political, economic and military issues in Ancient

Greece were always concerning land. In his book, The Other Greeks, Hanson supports the ideas

from the orthodoxy that the hoplites came from an expanding class of middling farmers and

became a force that affected socio-political change i.e. the rise of the polis. However, as in The

Western Way of War, he develops new ideas and in many ways, sets the tone for future debate.

Hanson ties the hoplite revolution to what Kagan and Viggiano refer to as an “agrarian

renaissance” (Kagan and Viggiano 2013, 32). Hanson describes this renaissance happening

towards the end of the Dark Age (8th century) where the was a population increase that was most

likely supported by the following: “(1) a quiet revolution in agricultural technique and rural

9

social organization in general, (2) an incorporation of new technologies and crop species, (3) an

intensification of labor, or (4) – perhaps most likely – all three factors, which could coalesce to

increase food production, and hence provide the prosperity needed to ensure that a new

economic class, the independent small farmer, would be a permanent, rather than a transitory,

fixture on the Greek landscape.” (Hanson 1995, 41).

Hanson feels this agrarian revolution drove the military revolution of the creation of the

hoplite phalanx. He rejects the theory that the phalanx followed the adoption of the panoply. He

uses the references to mass combat in Homer’s Iliad to support his claim that the tactics of the

phalanx existed before the complete adoption of the hoplite equipment. It is interesting that

Hanson rejects both the gradualists and sudden change theorists but adopts his own take on the

gradualist position.

The revisionists argue against all aspects of the orthodox. They do not believe there was a

sudden adoption of the panoply. Therefore, they do not believe in the sudden appearance of the

phalanx tactics. They do not support the thinking of a rise of a middling class of citizen soldiers

that gave rise to the polis. Many revisionists support a gradualist position on the adoption of the

panoply and consequently the phalanx tactics. Gradualists also question the political role hoplites

played in the rise of the polis.

One of the original revisionists to the orthodoxy is Anthony Snodgrass. According to

Kagan and Viggiano, “the first sustained challenge to the orthodoxy come with Anthony

Snodgrass’ seminal work from the 1960’s.” (Kagan and Viggiano, 2013, 35). In his work, The

Hoplite Reform and History, Snodgrass weighs all the literary and artistic evidence and

concluded “that the adoption of the ‘hoplite panoply’ was a long drawn out, piecemeal process,

which did not at first entail any radical change in tactics.” (Snodgrass 1965, 110). Snodgrass

10

dates a fully developed phalanx at 650 BC. By doing this, he eliminates the hoplite citizen

soldier from having any impact in the rise of the polis. He concludes, “the Greek hoplite entered

history as an individual warrior, probably in most cases an aristocrat. The adoption of the

phalanx meant that he was joined by men, for the most part substantial land-owners, who had

come not to seek a way to political power nor by any wish of their own, but because they were

compelled to. These men, however stout-hearted as warriors, are not likely to have become, all at

once, a revolutionary force in politics.” (Snodgrass 1965, 122). Snodgrass does not accept the

“sudden change” theory of the orthodoxy. He accepts the creation and growth of a class of

middling farmers. But he does not feel they were a political force. “Hoplites, in short, were an

instrument before they became a force.” (Snodgrass 1965, 122).

Hans Van Wees takes the lead in the current revisionist debate. In The Homeric Way of

War: The ‘Iliad’ and the Hoplite Phalanx (I and II), Van Wees argues for the reduced role of the

phalanx as an instrument of military and therefore political change. In a footnote to Part II, he

concludes: “I do not believe that the introduction of the double-grip shield greatly accelerated the

growth of the phalanx formation.” (Van Wees 1995, 155 note 100). Van Wees analyzes the use of

weapons in the Iliad and Attic Geometric vase paintings to prove his conclusion that the

transition of the adoption of the phalanx happened over a long period of time and was much

slower. He does not recognize a clear cut (sudden) break between the styles of the Homeric

champions and the hoplites. For example, regarding spear thrusts versus spear casts there are 79

mentions of thrusts or 38.3% of total spear usage versus 87 spear casts mentioned or 42.2% of

total spear usage. (Van Wees 1995, 144).

Van Wees attempts to explain the fighting styles represented in the Iliad by supporting the

idea that Homeric champions actually used arms and armor similar to that of the hoplites but

11

used them in an open formation. He concluded that both heroic fighters and massed infantry are

present in Homer. Champions pick out other champions to fight while the open order infantry

skirmish about throwing spears, javelins or stones. According to Van Wees, open order and

closed order fighting happened simultaneously.

Van Wees does offer somewhat of a compromise regarding hoplites. He allows for the

presence of massed fighting of both styles – Homeric and hoplite. However, he dates the shift to

the phalanx to after the 7th century. This effectively supports the revisionist argument that there

could not have been a shift in power from aristocrats to a rising middling farmer class. Kagan

and Viggiano summarize Van Wees position: “Mass combat did not lead to political changes.”

(Kagan and Viggiano 2013, 46). There was no hoplite-led political revolution.

Van Wees cites two of the surviving fragments of poetry by Tyrtaeus to prove that the

poet was not writing about a phalanx. First, “those who dare go into close range and towards the

front line fighters, while staying together, die in smaller numbers” (F II.11-13) is used to support

Van Wees’ concept of both heroic fighters and massed infantry being present at the same time on

the battlefield. Van Wees also uses Tyrtaeus to draw a connection between the types of massed

fighting Homer describes, “And you, light-armed, squatting under a shield here and there, must

throw great rocks and hurl smooth javelins while you stand close by the heavy-armed.” (F II. 35-

8). Van Wees argues that fighting took place at close range and long range at the same time.

Van Wees does concede the idea that an agrarian revolution took place as Hanson argues.

However, he places it in the 3rd century BC – two centuries later than Hanson. This supports his

theory that there was no rise of a hoplite middling class farmer that gained more and more

political power and affected a change in the style of government.

12

In the introduction to Men of Bronze, Kagan and Viggiano wrote they had hoped to

conclude the orthodox debate definitively with all parties accepting one side or the other. The

reality is that both sides dug themselves in deeper to their positions. I propose a third option that

merges both sides of the debate together. First, I would like to drop the term “revolution” along

with the “sudden change” approach. Second, I would like to accept the term “evolution”. There

was gradual change taking place over hundreds of years. It started with the collapse of the

Mycenean kings/beginning of the Dark Age and ended with the Macedonian Phalanx. Lastly, I

suggest we examine an iterative approach. If we accept the type of combat Van Wees feels was

taking place in the Iliad, that of both open and closed order fighting happening at the same time,

we can start each iteration by saying that over time, fighters gradually moved from the common

ranks of skirmishers to the front ranks or promachoi. As they gradually adopted the double grip

shield and other pieces of the panoply, they gradually started adopting hoplite close order battle

tactics. First, one Homeric champion fought next to his brother in arms. Two heroic champions

fighting side by side lead to a third and then to a fourth until fully ranked heavy infantry were

fighting in a phalanx.

In order to afford the cost of the hoplite panoply, new wealth had to be created. This

wealth was being created by a new economic class, the independent middling farmer. As farming

techniques increased as Hanson describes, new wealth was being generated. More wealth

allowed for the purchase of armor and double grip shields. More double-grip shields lead to more

and more infantry closing ranks and developing the phalanx tactics.

Along with wealth creation and the honor of the placement in the ranks of the promachoi

came voting rights. The hoplite was a combination of militia man, business man and voter. This

The rise of the hoplite farmer lead to changes in the political structure and the rise of the polis.

13

This process was constantly iterating over the course of a few hundred years. New wealth lead to

new hoplites which lead to deeper ranks of phalanx and a voice in government for the middle

class. This iterative cycle continued over and over again until the arrival of the Macedonian

sarissa phalanx of Alexander.

Figure 2 Iterative Hoplite Cycle

Pressures on Land

Use

Evolutions in farming techniques

creation and growth of the middling farmer class

wealth creation

increase adoption of hoplite panoply

increase in usage of double-

grip sheild

infantrymen closing ranks

phalanx

militia man,

businessman, voter

rise of the polis

14

References

“Documents of The Hoplite Revolution, c. 750 - 650 BCE” Internet Ancient History Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/hoplite-rev.asp . Accessed January 31, 2014.

Grote, George. 1846. A History of Greece. New York.

Hanson, Victor Davis. 1989. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Knopf.

Hanson, Victor Davis. 1995. The Other Greeks. Free Press.

Herodotus. 1992. The Histories of Herodotus. Everyman’s Library.

Homer. 1990. The Iliad. Penguin Classics.

Kagan, Donald and Viggiano Gregory F. 2013. Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece. Princeton University Press.

Knox, Bernard. 1993. The Norton Book of Classical Literature. Norton.

Snodgrass, Anthony. 1965. The Hoplite Reform and History,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 85. Accessed January 12, 2014.

Strassler, Robert B. 1996. The Landmark Thucydides. Free Press.

Van Wees, Hans. 1994. The Homeric Way of War: The ‘Iliad’ and the Hoplite Phalanx (I). Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 41, No. 1. Cambridge University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/643127. Accessed January 23, 2014.

Van Wees, Hans. 1994. The Homeric Way of War: The ‘Iliad’ and the Hoplite Phalanx (II). Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 41, No. 2. Cambridge University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/643010. Accessed January 24, 2014.