DR NIC FIELDS naned his

~r n a bioche....ist before

joining ct." RoyaJ Man""",

Having ...1t the Navy, h"

went bade to Univ"niry and<:amp...t .... a BA and PhD

in ArK"'nt History at the

Univ.,.....;ry of N_(.;lSd... H"_ Assistant Di~orat tt>eBriti>h S<:hooI of Ar<:haeok>gy,

Att...ns.,~ then a I«w....r

in Anci""t Hist""'Y at tho!

Uni""niry ofEdinburr. Ni<:

is now a freelan<:e author and~herboued ;n oouct..We5t,~.

BRIAN DELF began his <:areer

working in 3. London art studio

producing artwork for

ad"erti.ing and <:o.........,r(lal

publi<:ation., Sin<:e 1972, he has

worked as a freel;,n<:e iIIu.trator

on a "ariety of subjects induding

naturaJ history, ar<:hitecture and

t"<:hni<:aJ <:utaways, So.... e of his

re("ntly illu5tr...ted book. have

been published in over)O

(;ountries, Brian Ilvn and worb

in Oxford.hi .... ,

---------------------------

Fortress • 40

Ancient GreekFortifications500-300 Be

Nic Fields· Illustrated by Brian DelfS~ ...ie5 ed, tors MMCUS Cowper & Nikolai Bogdancvic

Rn< pul"ishe<j in 2006 t>r~PlJ~""1oz

M",1on<I H"""o,W."W"1, Botie)o;O><fof'Cl 0)(2 OI'H,UK

+\] .................. South.NewVori<.NV IOOI"lJSA

E-mK fto(\lo~.hl"4-C"'"

.....I"iws ......~~!<om "'I' /air ......... for doe pu:'fIO>e ofpriY;lt< .tully,

...-. crio,,,m "'" _ ... pornom-d ...- "'" COfIrri&h<. 000iIn> """ I'>t<n<>

....,.~ 178S.no p.>nofdlis p<Jbl_....,. boo ~ocl."""" in.~ 'l"'""'­

or <nmMInod In ..,.,.", "'"t>r ...,. I\'>eaM. eloctr<>rIi<, cloc>ri<:aI,c~m_

o;>tial.~........... "'"~_ut "'" prIOr_ perm_ 01

""'~_~_boo_t<l""'PUoi>h_

by a one-, two- or three-figure reference. If the work ;s a play orpoem, the figure reference indicates either 'line', or 'book' and'iine'_Thus ·Homer (Odyssey 8.512)' refel"1 to line S 12 of the eigllthbook of th<! Odyssey. Alternatively, if the work is a treatise, diefigure reference indicates 'book' and ·chapter'. or 'book', 'chapter'and 'paragraph'. Thus 'Strabo (13.1.32)' refers to paragraph 32 ofthe first chapter of the 13th book of the only surviving work byStr.lbo.When modem authors are referred [0 dlroUghOUl metext die HMYolrd system of referen<:i~ has been adopted. Theformula used is 'author':publiatioro due· followed by pagenumber(s).Thus ·Drews (1993: 1(6)' refers to page 106 of his1993 publiation. that is. The end offhe Bronze Age: Changes; in

Warfare and !he ClJIastrophe <:../200 Be.

Abbreviations~Kol\lo;lG<opho<~~I.*

~tw S<udIo 1.1<1."""""'1.*_t>r_Wood·C""~br~L..C.I.*_ ..0W00""""cl'~

0'111010910109a7'S'))1

fQll",~... AUIOClCS~ .. O>ru.' ~~........".

U"''iE~

NOItTH AI1~1UCA

o.pq. Ow=..CIo korwl__~ Ccrur,~ _ Road.""""'<JI'Wt<tM;H0211S7

~ r-fo@oo; .,60 K"""'"

Harding

IG

Maier I

Maier II

T<Xi

f. Jacoby. Oil! Frotmente del~ Hisroriket(8erlin & leiden. 1923-)

C.w. Fomara. TronsIoted Documentsof~ andRome l.. hdlOIC Tomes fO die end o(!he~War (Cambridge, 1983)P. Harding. Tronsloted Documents" O(Gteea and Rome2: From the end 0( the PeIopor~~ War fO 1M boule

o(ftnus (Cambridge.I98S)Inscnp60nes Groecoe (Ber~n. 1923-)f. G. M~r,~ 1I10000000insdlrifetll

(HeideIberl. 19S9)f. G. M~r,GrredIische 1I1~ri(en /I(Heidelberg. 1961)M. N.Tod,A SeIealon o(Greek HisfOncoI Irrsmptiom

vol 2: 403 8C fO 323 8C (Oxford. 1948)ALL OTHER REGIONS0,_ or.ct lJl(. ro Box 100.WoII~ N""",,",- NNa 2FA, UKE__ ""o@o$proy<I~

www.OOI""Jpubliol>ins·com

Artist's note

Readers may care to note that the original paintings from whkhthe color plates in this book were prepared are available forprivate sale.AII reproduction copyright whatsoever is retained bythe Publishers. All enquiries should be addressed to:

Brian Delf,7 Buccot Park,Buccot,

Abingdon,OXI43DH,

UK

The Publishel"1 regret that they an enter into no cOfTeSpondetlceupon this matter.

Editor's note

When classial author1; are referred to throughout the text the

standard form of reference has been adopted.The formula used is

·:l.Uthor·.ode' (if the author wrote more than one WOI't.) followed

The Fortress Study Group (FSG)

The object of the FSG is to advance the education of the IX'blic inthe study of all upeca of fortifications and their armamenu.especially worb constructed to moUnt or resist artillery.The fSGholds an annual conference In September over a long weekendwith ¥isla and evening lectures, an annual tour abroad lastingabout eight days, and an annual Members' Day.The FSG journal FORT is p~blished annually, and iu newsletterCasemate is published three times a year. Membership isinternational. For further details, please contact:

The Secretary, cia 6 Lanark Place, London W9 IBS, UK

The Coast Defenses Study Group(CDSG)

The Coast Defense Study Group (CDSG) Is a non-profitcorporuion formed to promote me study of COa~t defenses andfortifications. primarily but not exclusively those 01 the UnitedStateS of America; their history. architecture, technology, andstrategic and tactical employment. Membership in the CDSGindudes four issues of the organiution'~ twO quarterlypubliations the Coast Defense Journal and the CDSGNewslm:tl'!r. For mOf"e information about the CDSG pl.....,;e visitwww.cdsg.erg.or to join th<! CDSG write to:

The Coast Defense Swdy Group.lnc~631 Silver Dawn Court,Zionsville. IN 160n_9088 (Attn: Glen W~fiford)

l

Contents

Introduction 4

Chronology of major events 5

Building methods 9Financing~ W>our • Planning • 8u~ding macerAls • Making brida

Quarrying stone • Masonry $tyles . lifting stones

Fortifications 16Athens (Attia.) • Gyphtoka$uo (Attica) • Mif>tineia (Arcadia)

Messene (Meueni:a) • Other fortific;.ltion$

Nature of conflict and society 46A;r.amn city-sa.te . Hoplite WV"bre

The sites at war 53Siege of P1",a.ia ('129-427 ac) . Siege of 5yncuse (4 1S--1 13 ac)

Siege of Mantineia (385 ac)

The sites today 61Useful contaCt information • Websites

Bibliography 62

Glossary 63

Index 64

4

Introduction

For the Greeks the characteristic form of political organization was that of thecity-state (POlis), the small autonomous community. with publicly fundedinstitutions, confined to one city and its hinterland. It was, as Aristotle soneatly expressed it, 'an association of sc\'cral villages that achieves almostcomplete self.sufficiency' (Politics I252b8). No 'city' in the modern sense wascreated, for the association established a new and overriding citizenship inwhich the political independence of the ancestral villages was submergedforever. For Aristotle man was 'by nature an animal of the polis' (Politic.s1253a9), being designed b)' his nature to realize his full potential throughliving the good life within the framework of the polis. the key signifier ofcivilization. Appropriately, Aristotle (Politics 1275a5-8) defined the citizen(poJitm) as the man who share5 in political judgement and rule.

As an agrarian-ba5.cd society, the poliS controlled and exploited a t£'rritory(cllOra), which was delimited geographically by mountains or sea, or byproximity to another polis. The nearest and most powerful neighbour was thenatural enemy. Border wars were thus common, as were inter-polis agreemenuand attempts to establish territorial rights o"er disputed areas. Autonomy wasjealously guarded, but the necessities of collaboration made for a proliferationof foreign alliances, leagues of small communities, usually ethnically related,and hegemonies. There was also constant interchange and competitionbetween poleis, so that despite their separate identities a common culture wasalways maintained.

While the polis was defined in terms of its dti?.cns (e.g. the Athenians notAthens) rather than geographically or through bricks and marble, itsdevelopment \'I.'3S also a proce.ss of urbanization and the walled city, for instance,is common in HomeL Undeniably the archaeological remains of Bronze AgeGreece reveal fortifications of great strength and complexity, as at Mycenae,Tiryns and Gla, yet these Mycenaean titade!s are the counterparts of medievalcastles rather than of walled dties. But when the residential fortress ceases to bethe citadel and becomes the dty, fortifications now protl'Ct the citizen body andnot merely the ruler and his household. Greek po/eis, to quote Winter, 'weremuch more than fortresses, they were complete social, political and economicunits to a degree never achieved hy their modern successors' (1971: xvi).

Raised and maintained by the stale, the circuit, usually of sun-driedmud-brick resting on a low rubble sode, was nOl very high or very strong. Forit did not yet neeu to be as pulis conflict was decided by spear and shield,though some attempt was made to give protection to city gateways. InAnatolia, amongst the East Greeks, stronger fortifications are well attested bythe results of excavation, though at the turn of the 5th century lie these couldnot defeat the siegecraft that the Persians had learned from the Assyrians. Butin Greece proper, city walls, simple as they were, sufficed for their purpose, andwould remain so until the technology of attack (mechaniC$) had caught upwith that of defence (construction) through the Invention of the torsion-springcatapult (kataptltes, 'shield-piercer') by military engineers in the employ ofPhilip II of Macedon.

Chronology of major events

490 Be

480 Be

486 Be

483/482 Be

498/497 Be494 lie491 Be

revolts in Boiotia, Euboia; battle of F"trSt

Koroneia (ends Athens' 'onuol of Boiotia),

secession of Megan

Spartan invasion of Attica; Perikles quashes

Euboian revoltThirty Year> Peace

Samos rebels

440-432 BC, BETWEEN THE WARS439 BC Samos surrenders

c.435 BC Perikles' Black Sea expedition

434 BC Corcyra and Corinth clash

433 BC Athenian alliance with Corcyra: battie of

Sybota433/432 BC Athenian alliances with Leontinl, Rhegion

432 BC Potidaia rebels; conferences at Sparta and

ultimatum to Athens

447/446 BC

446 BC

446/445 BC

440llc

499-479 Be, PERSIAN WARS499-49"1 IIC Ionian Revolt

498 lie b<t.we of Sepeia (Sparta triumphs over Af:os);Adleni<lJ\$ and Eretrlans bum Sardis

Persians ~ke Cyprus (fall of Palaj~s)battle of lade (WI of Milews)

Dareias I demands 'earth and water' from

Greeks; Gelon ryrant of Gela

Persians sack Naxos. Karynos. Eretria: baede of

Marathon; accession of Leonidas

acceuion of XerxesPersiarls dig Athas canal: Themistokles'

naval programme

Xerxes crosses Hellespont: battles ofThermopylai (Leonidas killed).Artemision,

Salamis; Gelon defeats Carthaginians

at Himera

429/427 BC

428/427 BC

426 BC

430 BC

429 BC

425 BC

424 BC

422 BC

421 BC

432-421 BC, PElOPONNESIANWAR(Archidamian War)Thebes attacks P1ataia; Sparta's first invasion ofAttica

Potidaia surrendersPhormio's r\i!V'3.1 victories; plague in Athens

(Perikles dies)

siege of P1ataia

Mytilene rebels

Sparta sends colony to Herakleia Trachinia;

Qemosthenes' Aetolian campaign

Pylos campaign

battle of Delion; Brasidas' Thracian campaign

battle of Amphipolis (Brasidas and Kleon killed)Peace of Nikias

431 BC

battles of P1atai... (Mardonios killed), Mykale

479/478 ac

478 ac

47411c

467 Be

c.46611c

46511c

461/460 BC

479 Be

479-460 Be, EMERGENCE OF IMPERIALATHENSFoundation of ~Iian League (anti-Persian)

City VhIls of Athens begun: expeditions toBynntium, SetoS, Cyprus: Sparta INvesDelian le:3~

476/475 ac expeditions [0 Eion,Skyros (bones

of Theseus)

Hieron of Syracuse defeats Etruscans at Kyme

fall of tyranny in Syracuse

Eurymedon campaign

Thasos quits Delian LeagueAthenian alliance with Argos, Thenaly, Megara

460-440 BC, FIRST PElOPONNESIANWAR

418 BC

420 BC

413 BC

5

421-413 BC, PElOPONNESIANWAR(Phoney Peace)Alkibiades' quadruple alliance between Athens,

Argos, Mantineia, Elis

battle of first Mantineia (opportunity to defeat

Sparta on land squandered)Athenians sack Melos (Thucydides' Melian

Diologue)Athenian expedition to SicilyGylippos sent to Syracuse; second expedition

under Demosthenes

loss of Athenian armada Ol.t SynoCU5e

416 BC

41511c

414 BC

413-404 BC, PElOPONNESIAN WAR(Ionian War)

413 Be Spartans seize Dekeleia In Anica (epileich.i$mos)

Athenian expedition to Egypt

Long Walls of Athens begun

Saronic Gulf conflict (siege of Aigina);Athenian

victories in Megarid

battles ofTanagra, Oenophyu (Athens controls

Boiotia);Athenian alliance with Egesta

disaster f01'" Athens in Nile DeltaDelian League tr"eOUury tnnsferred from Delos

to Athens (metamorphosis of league to

empire complete)revolts of Erythrai, Miletos; first extant

Athenian Tribute Ust

frve.year truce between Athens ;md Sparta,

Kimon campaigns (;md dies) on Cyprus

Peace of Kallias (detente between Athens

and Persia)

451 BC

453 BC

460 BC,.458 BC

458 BC

45411c

454/453 IIC

449/448 Be

458/457 BC

, (J

Melos~

seriphOS.Q

AEGEAN SEA

MAGNESIA g ~ •

<!) "t::/1r, •Sk""",

capeMalea

\'Q.( THRACE

( ~.::­~ s~~ ~O

c_.

•......

Gape Tainaron

PAEONIA\

f

<'(pe~S'

ElisZ'kyot""~

• EpiaaJlll1O$

••

'.N

t~m'·lII ,...

6

386-371 BC, DEFEAT OF SPARTA

7

369 BC

367 BC

336-323 BC,ALEXANDER III 'THE GREAT'336 BC Alex.ander hegimon of Greeks

335 BC campaigns in Thrace, Illyna, sack of Thebes

334 BC Antipater regent of Macedon,A1ennder

crosses Hellespont (visits Troy). battle of

Granikos: sieges of Miletos. HilJibrnassos

336 Be

338 BC

337 BC

344 BC

339 BC

353-346 BC

352 BC

348 BC

346 BC

357 Be

340 BC

365 BC

364 BC

362 BC

360-336 Be, RISE OF MACEDON3601359 BC AccesslOfl of Philip II of Macedon

357-355 BC Social War (ends Second Athenian

Confederacy)

Euboia revolts from Thebes: Philip capwres

Amphipolis. tNnies Olympias of Molossia

Philip capwres Methone (loses eye): Dionassassinar.ed

Sacred War (shatterS Thebes)Philip's victory at ·Crocus Field'

Philip captures Ofynthos

Peace of Philokrates (detente between Philipand Athens)

Philip campaigns in Thrace, Epeiros,Thessaly

(elected togas for 1111"): Dionysios II overthrown(retires to Corinth);Timoleon of Corinth

arrives in Sicily

Carthaginians capture Syracuse

BC Philip and Athens clash in Chersonesos

Timoleon defeats Carthaginians at Krimisos

(reconstructs Sicily as outokrator):Athensintervenes on Euboia

Alexander regent in Macedon, Philip besieges

Perinthos, Byzantium, seizes Atheniat1 grain-ships:Athens abrogates Peace of Philokrates

Philip bypasses Thermopylai (garrisons Elateia):Athenian alliance with Thebes

battle of Chaironeia

league of Corinth (Philip proclaimed hegemon

of Greeks): Lykourgos comes to prominenceat Athens

Philip assassinated (army acclaims Alex.ander III)

343 BC

342/341

341 BC

354 Be

371-360 BC,THEBAN HEGEMONY370/369 BC Epameir.ondas' first invasion of Peloponnese,

(Messenia liberated, Mantineia re.founded)

Epameinondas' see::ond invasion (reduces

Sparta's effective allies to Corinth, Phleious)

Dionysios I sends second force of mercenaries;

Sparta wins'Tearless Battle' against Ar<::adians:

death of Dionysios I (son succeeds asDionyslos II)

3671366 BC $;luaps'Revolt

3661365 BC Epameinondas' third invasion of Peloponnese

(final collapse of Peloponnese league)Pelopidas killed

Thebes destrO)'S Orchomenos

Epameinondas' last invaSIOn of Peloponnese,

bude of Second Mantineia (Epa.meinondaskilled)

Agesipolis captures Mantineia

Phoebidas captures Kadmeia

Spartans punish Phleious, capture Olynthos

(apogee of Sparta'S power)Kadmeia liberated (Thebes new 'superpower')

Sphodrias raids Attica

Thebans 'liberate' Thespiai; foundations of

Boiotian league; Second Athenian Confederation

Agesilaos invades Boiotia

Peloponnesian fleet defeated off Na:<.os

lason of Pherai elected tag05 ofThessal;Tlmotheos' expedition to Corcyra (victory off

Alirela): Sacred Band (under Pelopidas) defeat

Spartans at Tegyra

Athens and Sparta become allies, but Spartans

defeated at leuktn by Ep.;.meinondas

Spartan alliance with Persia and interventionin Aegean

Fclur Hundred rule Athens (democracy

overthrown); Euboia rebels: fleet at Samos

under ThrasybooJlos remains loyal to

democracy (Alkibiades takes command); battles

of Kynossema. Abydos

battle of Kyz.ikos; democracy restored in AthensSparQrlS capwre Chios

SpartarlS retake PyIos

Athenians capwre Byzantium: Carthaginianssack Himen.

failed coup d'etot of Hermokrates and Dionysios

Cartm.ginians besIege Akragas.: battle of Notion(Alkibiades' see::ond downbll- flees to Thrace);

battle of Arginousai (trial of Athenian stTutegoI)Akragas sacked: 1iege of Geb; Dionysios takes

power in Syracuse as Stm[~ oU!okn:nor

(treaty with Carthage); accession of Arr»:erxesII Mnemon; bame of Aigospotami

A1kibiades assasSln.ate<l:Athens defeated

(swean oath to follow Sp,arta 'by land and sea')

377 BC

376 BC

375 BC

3791378 BC

378 BC

378/377 BC

385 BC

382 BC

379 BC

371 BC

404-386 BC, SPARTAN HEGEMONY4041403 8C Thirty Tyr.tnts rule Athens (SparQn garrison on

Acropolis)

Thrasyboolos captures Peiraieus (derTNXracyrestored)

rebellion of Kyros the younger: battle ofCunaxa (march ofTen Thousand - Xenophon's

Anobasi$)Penia builds fleet for Athens (Admiral Konon)

Dionysios I besieges Motya

battle of Sardis

battles of Nemea River, Second Koroneia,Knidos

rebellion of Evagoras of Salamis

Iphikrates defeats Spartan mora at Lechaion

Dionysios I captures Rhegion

404 BC

405 BC

401 BC

4081407 BC

406 BC

410 BC

409 Be

4091408 BC

408 BC

403 BC

411 BC

398 BC

3981397 BC

396 BC

394 BC

412 BC

391 BC

390 BC

387 BC

307 BC

316 BC

311 BC

305-304 BC

304 BC

303/]01 BC

]01 BC

323-30 I Be,WARS OF THE SUCCESSORS32J BC Krateros, Perdikkas., Ptolemy, Seleukos et al.

divide empire into rival spheres of power

313-311 BC Greek mercenaries revolt (&ctria); lamian War

J 1113 16 ac Kas.sandms (Antiparer's wn) holds Macedon

(Demeuios of Pholleron puppet.ruIer in Athens);

foundations of Kassandreia.ThesWonib

Antigonos' victory at Gabiene (Eomenes

execoted);Anligooos acclaimed 'King of all Asia'

Ptolemy and Seleukos defeat DemetriosPoliorkete5 (Antigonos' son) at Gan; Seleukos

returns to BabylonDemetrios 'liberates' Athens (Demetrios of

Phaleron exiled)

Demerrios' fruidess siege of Rhodes

Kassandros besieges Athens

Agathokles invades southern Italy

coalition of Ptolemy, Seleukos, L.ysimachos against

Antigonids: battle of Ipsos (Antigonos kliled)

Gordian knot;Alexander defeats Dareios III at

luos; Darei05o' flnt-peace offer

submissiorL5 of Byblos. Sidonaiege5 ofTyre,

GilZ3;AJexander crowned Pmraohvr;illo Siwah; foundation of Alexandria; Dareio5'final peace-offier;A1exander defeats Da~os al

Gaogamela;AJexander enters BabylondeslTl.lction of Persepolis: Darelol; rTMJrdered,Beu05 (sauap of Bactlia) proclaims hirrnelf'GrNt King'

Hindu Kush U05Sed: Bessos captured

campaigns againn Spitamel'les (Baana. Sogdia)Sogdian Rock Qpwred

Swat valley GUTlpaign;AJexander defeats Poros

at Hydapses; mutiny n Hyphasis, siege of

Multan (Alexander WOtlnded)

Alexander crosses Gedrosia; Nean;hos sails to

Persian GulfAlexander dies in Babylonn3 BC

329 BC

318 ac317 ac316 BC

315 BC

JJlac

332BC

3J3 BC

no BC

Individual sun-dned mod-bricks,whi<;h rest Ol'l a socIe of rubblermsonry, a~ cl~rly discerniblein the West Gate of EreuU.Asfor the Athenians. the sandardme.surement employed by the&etriarn wu the 'short fool'.(Audlors collection)

Building methods

By combining the examination of the structures with the study of thedocuments and other written sources relating to their building we can begin toknow something of the cost of Greek fortifications in terms of money, labour,materials and time. The study of the relevant literature also has the immediatevalue of enabling surviving fortifications in many cases to be dated with moreprecision than is possible by archaeological evidence alone.

Financing and labourMilitary architetture, like religious or secular architecture, was financed withpublic funds or the spoils of a successful military campaign (Maier 11.$5-66, d.Plutarch Kimon 13.6). :\'lany affluent citizeJl5 too are known to havecontributed money from their o.....n capital. Konon the younger, albeit undercompulsion, provided iO talents from his o.....n estate to repair the city walls ofAthens (Nepos nmotiltOS 4.1). When the Athenians learned of the disastrousoutcome of Chaironeia (338 Be), they straightaway took. steps to defend Athensagainst the Maccdonians. The statesman Lykourgos gives a vivid account(Agaimr Look/ares 44) of the measures undertaken at that moment:

Men of every age offered their services for the city's defence on thatoccasion when the land was giving up its trees, the dead their gravestones,and the temple arms. Some set themselves to building walls, other 10making ditches and palisades. Not a man in the dty was idle.

The lower part of this dom,,~tic

buildirl& in Argos IS a sociI! of rubble~ry.witt! the upper partS builtIn $1.lIl·dried mud-bri<:k.A1beit moresubsantial. INlny fortilk;nion w.tllsI'Iad a superstructure largely ofmod-brick. (Author's collection)

The orator Dcmosthencs boasts (18.118, d. 248, 299-300)that he himself served as one of the wall builders (teicilOpoioi),spending 10 talents of public money (Aischincs 3.23, d. 31)and a further 100 millae, or 10,000 Attic drachmas, from hisown estale (Aischines 3.17, Plutarch Mom/ia 84Sr, d. 8SIA,Demosthenes 18.118) to repair his assigned section. Both inthe Pt'1oponnesian War (Thucydides 3.17.4) and in the time ofAlexander the Great (lG HZ 329.10 '" Harding 102), a drachmawas the daily pay of a soldier, thus giving a very rough idea ofthe value of a /llilw.

Once tile decision to build, or repair, fortifications hadbeen made the labour force, which included salariedprofessionals such as carpenters and stonemasons(Xenophon HeJlenik(l 4.8.10), was assembled. It would beheaded by an architecT (arcllitektoll). the chief builderresponsible both for th~ design and for the supervision ofactual construction (Plato Po/ilik,QS 25ge-260a). Whenfurther work on the walls of Athens was undertaken in307/306 Be an archite<:t was elected by the assembly (lG ii 2

463.6-7, d. 9). An earlier Athenian document, dating to409/408 RC and recording the payments made to bring theErcchtheion to completion, records lhat an architect thenreceived the standard day-wage rate of one Attic drachma(lG j.1 476, 60-61, 266-268). Another Athenian document,dating 10 395/394 IlC and recording sums disbursed for therebuilding of the dt}' walls, records daily payments of 160Attic drachmas 'for the teams bringing the blocks' (Too 107).

I.

Timber ~vetting reinforces thismud-brick wall in the village ofDelphi.Ancient Greek-. likewiseemployed amber to hold brickworl<together. thereby preventNll the$tnJcru.-e lrom bPeoming weak n ituuined heicht. (Author·s colle<:tion)

PlanningArchitects preferred, when tracing out city wallS, to try to make use of naturaldefences such as a precipitous hill. Thus the nucleus of many older citles wasthe acropolis, iI hill that was defensible without being too high andinaccessible. Yel the acropolis could 110t be too far removed from the ilrailleland it was meant to control. As Aristotle emphasizes (Politics 1330b2-3):

The site of the dry should likewise be convenient both for politicaladministration and for WilL With view to rhe latter it should afford easyegress to the citizens, but difficult to approach or blockade for any enemies.

Thus the ideal site was lIlt' tip of a spur, which ran out from the flank of iI

mountain and was Iinkro to the main mass by a narrow ridge.However, as Circuits did not ix'corne common till the 601 century 1\(;, or

normal till the 5th century He, walls lended to be loosely flunl{ round the wholecity at a wmpMatively late stage of its deVelopment, that is, when urban growthwas in some sense comptele. As Wychertey says, a circuit 'was not the frame intowhich the rest fitled' (1976: 39) and some cities would remain un-walled in theclassical period, Sparta and [lis for example. Also, the military value of theacropolis d('CTeased and would gradually disappear as an essential feature in theplan of a 5th- and 4th-century city. Hence Aristotle (Po/itic_~ 133Ob5) discussesthe acropolis from the political rather than the military view point.

Building materialsMaterials employed in Greek fortifications lIlay be divided into two maingrou~: sun-dried mud-brick on a stone socle. and walls built entirely of Slone.

Completion in mud-brick unquestionably saved a great deal of time andmoney. The bricks could be made rapidly with little apparatus and byunskilled labour. :-.ior were speed and cheapness the only advantages brickoffered. Mud-brick is fireproof and practically indestructible to the weal her

when lhe surface is properly protected. Also. a brickconstruction is not affC1:ted by minor earthquake shocks.Demoslhcnes speaks (3.25-26, 23.207, d. 13.29) of thebrick hou.~cs of Themistokles, Miltiades and Aristides asstill inhabited in his day. nearly ISO years later; indeedthey were eVidently in good condition and quiteindiStingUishable from their neighbours.

Yel there weJC comparatively few sites where bricks couldbe made in sufficient quantities. The process reqUired acopious water supply as well as a vast amount of clay of atype that would not crumble or crack in a wall. Also, tll('manufacture of brick when limestone was around inabundance mad\' the latter a more viable proposition. As arule in Greece the ground was both encumbered withfragments of convenient size and interrupted by bareescarpmenU and outcrops - architects missed no oppor­tunity for including stretches of bedrock in a wall - often solayered and cross·fissured that scmi.rectangular blocks couldbe detached by means of wedges and crowbars alone. Underthese conditions, if stone was left untrimmed, it could begathered and put togcthE'T in less time than would be spentin making and laying an equivalent number of bricks.r\cvertheless, if a fortification was intended to be per­manent, m350ns were employed at least to knock off theworse excrescences and, if financially possible. to dress someof the blocks. Yet, although all-stone fortifications be-camemore common they never ousted mud-brick ones entirely.

Thl' av,lilability of materials and local prejudice continued 10 be thedetermining factors as to which construction was used. An Athenianinscription (/G iiz 463) of 307f306 ue deals, amongst other things, with repairsin brickwork to the pre-existing circuit of the same material, and Vitruvius(2.8.9) refers to the brickwork that existed in his day in the eastern andnorthern stretches afthe city walls. At Olynthos abundant supplies of clay wereavailable for domestic structures and fortification walls, whereas stone waseVidently scarce. Similarly Manrineia, re-established by the Thebans, sat in anupland plain with an inexhaustible supply of clay, whereas its stone quarrieswere situated some distance away. The Mantineians, accordingly, rebuilt theircity walls out of mud-brick.

Making bricksAn Eleminian inscription of 329f328 llC hints that the clay for bricks reqUiredlong preparation before it was put into wooden moulds, for there is no otherway of explaining the "ery mOdcsr Output of 1ZS bricks per day implied by thedocument's data. Still, with regards to financial matters the inscription is moreinformative. Clay to make 1,000 bricks cost four Attic drachmas, while the samenumlX'r of bricks could be purchased ready made for 36 drachmas. Additionally,the dail)' wage for a skilled labourer w.u given .u 2.5 Attic drachmas, while thatof his assistant was 1.5 drachmas (lG ii2 1672, :\iaicr 1.20, 101).

Bricks were formed in wooden frames with a number of compartments.These were open at the top and bottom, which often resulted in a considerabledifference in height of the bricks, while their length and width were regular.Several standard sizes and half-sizes were recognized, though each differsslightly from one locality to another. Kevertheless, the commonest sizes rangefrom 0.4 to 0.5m, with a height of roughly O.08m_ The bricks that have beenpreserved in the fonifications at Corinth and Eleusis, for example, art' almostidentical in size (Corinthian bricks 0.45 x 0.45 x O.09m, Eleusinian briCks0.45 x 0.45 x O.IOm). According to the aforementioned Eleusinian document,brick.~ belonging to Ihe Kimonian lVall were 'one and one-half foot bricks'(lG ii z 1672.55-57, cf. Vilruvius 2.3.3), which suggests that the standardmeasurement employed al E1cusis and at Corinth was the 'shari foot'(cO.296m). Surviving bricks from Olynthos, on the other hand, are somewhatlargt'r (0.49 x 0.49 )( O.09m). It appears, therefore, Ihat Olynthos was using Ihe'long foot' (cO. 326m). Both units arc probably of prehistoric origin.

If masonry replaced brick a wallcould consin of random ~ubble.

fieldnones found ill SItU. as is beingspeedily built here. However. rubblenusonry could root provide thestrength and size of wall requiredfo~ military archItecture. (Authot'"·scollection) II

QuarrYing stoneMasonry in dres~ stone required the productlon of stone blocks to specifiedsizes, and these were quarried according to the specifications of the architect.As for brick.,>, measurements were given in half-foot (llrll/ip6diol/) and foot(pOlis) lengths, subdivided into eight or 16 dactyls (lingers) respectively. Thelength 3ml width of the block were measured oul on the smfacc of the rock,and continuous channels were cut down vertically with hammer and chiseluntil the desired height was ohtained. Notches were then chiselled under thebottom of the block, wooden wedges were inserted and soaked in waler, and asthe wedges expanded they broke the block free from its bed.

When quarried, a block was always .several centimetres larger all round thanthe finished piece, the extra slone serving as a proteclive surface duringtransportation. Here the Greeks normally employed four-wheeled wagonsdrawn by oxen (Diodoros 4.18, IG ii 22 1656.8, 1673.47, 66), although sledgesand rollers were certainly used sometimes (/G xi 2 203R.97). The pulling powerof a pair of oxen was 25 talents or about half a ton (Xenophon Cyw[H/('(fi{/

6.1.54), hence special innovations were required to move blocks over 20 tOllS.These included great wooden wheels flUed around individual blocks, whichwere then pulled along by teams of draft animals (Vitruvius 10.2.11-12).

Masonry stylesThe Greeks believed that utility and beauty were inseparable (XenophonMemorabilia 4,6.9), and Ihis almost casual combination of exquisiteness andllsefulness we find in their polygonal, trapezoidal and ashlar masonry. Thoughausterely utilitarian, fortiflcation walls could still often be <:ounted among the<:ity's architl"Ctural glories. Aristotle says (POlitks 1331a11) that the wholecircuit ought to be an ornament as well as a protection. It would be the firstSight to impress a vi5itor, and it was meant to have a depressing effect on anapproaching enemy.

Briefly, the masonry of any wall belongs to one of three main groups: un-hewn,roughly he\vn, or carefully hewn and jointed. The distinction between the first twostyles is at bt.'st one of degree, and both may be classed simply as rubble masonry.The third group, which Invariably mnsistcd of faces of finely jointed masonryl'nclosing a fill of earth and broken stones, may be subdivided as follows:

Masonry styles

UNCOURSED MASONRY

Polygonal bloe;ksCurvilinf!ar bIodu (ScrantOn's ·Le.bian masonry·)

Trapezoidal blocks ('irregular trapezoidal')

Ashlar blocks ('irt"f!gular ashlar')

COURSED MASONRY

In both. courses may be all the sam<! height (isodomic)

or mey ml)' v:l.ry in height (P,~udo-isodomk)

12

If masonry was to replace mud-brick fortifications, random rubble, brokenstones collected in their natural condition, could not proVide the strength andsi ....(' of wall reqUired. Stone specially trimmed and fitted was essential.

Trapezoidal masonry, which appears in the later part of the 5th century lie,was a compromise between ashlar and polygonal. Such blocks are fiat on topand bottom, and equal In height throughout each course, but every now andthen an end is cut on the slant, causing an overlap at the joint. Usually overlapsoccur towards left and right alternately. Masonry of this kind looked civilizedand was easy to build, yet interlocked enough for the builders to feel safe inusing comparatively small blocks. Consequently the style was much used inmilitary architecture, l'Spt'("ially in the 100 years follOWing its introduction.

Polygonal, because of its superior powers of cohesion, was never supersededfor such purposes as fortifications where large blocks could be found on the

spot in shapes easily trimmed to interlock. Polygonal masonry tended toconsist of larger stones than coursed masonry, and the larger the stones themore stable the wall would be. First appearing in the early 6th century Be,

mature polygonal work was distinguishable chiefly by the preponderance ofprojections at right angles or nearly right angles.

In all styles of carefully hewn and filted ma~nry further distinctions Illaybe made on the basis of the treatment of the faces and joints of the blocks. Ingeneral, architects preferred to give fortification walls an appearance of massive

JIBO{E L£FT The north wall,Gyphtobstro, reveals the medlodof connruc;tion employed in militaryarrhirecrure. Stone spe<iallyquarried, trimmed and fitted wn

restricted to in outer and inner'skin', the space between being filledwith inferior material. broken stone.earth, and other muerial. (Author',collection)

Surface treatment

Quarry

Pointed

Little. ~Sin& pointed hammer, or no ntcmpt made to finish block face

USIng pointed hammer. block face consciously roughened

In removing beger projections with pundl, ....rtical furrows left on block face

Block rac" brought to flat surface. but not smooth

ABOVE '-IGHT A socle of pcolygonalmasonry at Eleusls. Because of iusuperior powers of cohes;on, thepolygonal style was favoured forsuch purposes as fonirtcatiOl'l.largeblocks could be found in situ inshapes easily trimmed to Interlock.(Author's colle<:tion)

and rugged strength, even when using a highly artifidal technique.The cutting and finishing of blocks was done with saws and drills, and,

primarily, with hammers and chisels, Chisels were of iron and came in a ,'ariet}'of shapes and sizes. Their most common shapes were the point, the toothed orclaw chisel, and the flat or drove chisel. If the rough, quarry surfaCt' was 10 beremoved and the ouler faces worked down, then Ihis was achie\'e<! wilh a clawchisel first and then with a drove. The inner faces of the blocks, however, wereleft in the rough state in which they were quarried so as to help bind the fill of 13

In ~oi.nl masonry.;oJ; here atGyphtok.mro. the horilonul joln[Sbetween the blocks are for themost part parallel. but the vertical;o;nu ;ore skewed_ Smaller chinkingstones. often triangubr, arcsometimc:s used between dlelarger blocks. (Author's collection)

"

Ashlar nus.onry. ean w.all of Phyte.Rectangular ,n form, all the blocksare longer d1an they are tall. but thelength ma.y vary along the course.When the courses ;Ire uniform inheilht.;oJ; here, the stonewor1< is1W<IomK:. (Author's collection)

earth and rubble together. The top and bottom resting surfaces of the block werealways dressed to a plane. The vertical joint surfaces were treatt>d with{/lIutllj'rosis, n'amely, only a llarrow band along the vertical edges and top wasfinished smooth, while the rest of the surface was recessed sllghtly and left roughpicked. As the Greeks laid their blocks absolutely dry, without bonding material,this trl.'atment allowed a tight Ioint with a minimum of effort and expcnS(' sinceonly the narrow strip of slone ncedro to make close contact with its neighbour.

)

1

1

1

Lifting stonesThere were a variety of means for lifting blocks into place. Most commonlyemployed WeTe lifting bosses (tmko/1('s), rectangular protrusions of the originalprotective envelope that wefe retained on opposite faces of the block when theTcst of the surface was worked down. Such bosses, located at the centre ofgravity, served as handles with either rope slings or iron tongs. Once the blockwas in place these bosses were removed in the final stages of construction.

As an alternative to lifting bosses, a deep U·shaped groove could be cut inloeach end of a block for lifting ropes. These could be easily pulled from therope~groovesafter placement. Another lifting device was the 'lewis bolt', a setof one flat and two wedge-shaped iron bars. These bars were set into atrapewidal cutting on the top surface of the block and pinned together, the pinalso passing through a stirrup-ring for attaching the hoisting rope (HeronMfclwllika 3.8). All cuttings for these various lifting devices were placed in sucha way as to be hidden in the fmished wall.

Vlorkers lifted the block into place by means of a high tripod, windlasses,multiply pulleys and rope. Once in its proper course, the block was movedcloser to its correct location on wooden rollers. Crowbars were needed for thefinal positioning; to give them purchase, shallow indentations, or pry-holes,were rut inro the top of the course below.

15

16

Fortifications

TIle life of the polis was founded upon agriculture and remained dependent onit. This was recogniled by Aristolle (Pulitics 125637) who contended that mostCill7..ens made their living by farming. The central task of fortifications,therefore, was the defence of the polis' territory (cIWra) rather than its urban corc(astll). This is not to deny the polltlcal and religious importance of the latter.However, given the limitations of tactics and ideology, territorial invasion couldachieve the desir~ result by bringing abollt a single battle at a far lower costthan a direct assault, that is, in the type of warfare at which hopliles excelled onthe kind of ground to which their arms and tactics were most suited. Funher,practical considerations in the form of the expense of siege warfare alsocurtailed its use. These diffio.lIties persisted into the early 4th century Be and arereflected in the slow development of Greek fortifications as compared withthose of the Near East. Hence Greeks tended to rely on the circuit itself as avertical barrier, punctuated by simple-opening gateways, whose primarypurpose was to counter hopllte attack and not elaborate siege techniques.

Around 500 BC a major innovation, perhaps borrowed from Near-Easternsources, appears with the addition of two-storeyed towers at vital points alongthe clrcuit to prOVide more convenient and numerous opportunities fortlanking fire. These towers were rectangular in shape in accordance witheastern practice, with a covered chamber in the second storey and an openfighting platform protected by a parapet at roof level. Gateways were aho betterprotected, being sheltered by a tower or towers, or by a deep inward jog, or byboth these features to form entranceways of the fmecourt type. Sprawling,contour-hugging fortifications (Geliilldelllaller circuits) now began toencompass the whole built-up area of the city, though financial considerationsoften limited the extent of the circuit. This concept of defending the urban areareplaced the concept of a defensible strongpointlike the acropolis.

Athens (Attica)The city walls of Athens, with their thick stone soele and frequent use of towers,established a pattern that was to be copied in other fortifications of the period.Also Athens, which was capable of deploying the far larger resources necessaryfor the expensive business of defence, started the trend for a nCl'l form offortification in the 'long wall'. Connecting a city to its port, such fortificationsproduced <l new str<ltegy associated with the name of Perik1cs. At the outbreakof the I'cloponnesian War he persuades his fellow citizens to look upon the cityof Athens, with its port, the Peiraieus now linked to it by the Long Walls, as anisland, and not try to defend the clUJ,a of Attica. At the same time, the fleet wasto be used to maintain the empire (Thucydides 1.143.5, 2.13.2).

Perikles was a statesman deeply committed to a purdy maritime empire. Aswar now threatened he expected his fellow citizens to simply man the wailsand the fleet, and the rest of Attica would have to look after itself- Yet themajority of the Athenians, as Thucydides says (2.14.2), normally lived in thecountryside, and Aristophanes in the AclJUmiallS (32-33) and elsewhere(Knigllts 40-43, Pax 1320-1328, FanlleTS [Dindorf frs. 162, 163J, fslands[Dindorf fro 344]) gives vivid glimpses of the deep attachment of a large sectionof the population to the ~il of Attica. So when Perikles takes the radical stepof breaking the rules of agonal warfare by shifting the entire population behindthe city walls, there are cries of anguish from the Attic countrymen since 'eachof them felt as if he was leaving his native city' (I·hucydides 2.16.2).

TopographyAndent Athens consisted of the City itself and Attica, the large triangular peninsulajutting southward into the Aegean Sea. The dty sat on a large coastal plain innorth-west Attica, surrounded by four mountains (Aigalcos, Parnes, Pentele,Hymcttos). Running through the plain in a north-east to south-\\1!:St orientatkm isa long limestone ridge. l'\ear ils south-western end, this ridge comprises theAcropolis, the Mouseioo (Philopappos Hill) and the Hill of the Nymphs, ""'ith thef>nyx, the meeting place of the Athenian assembly, lying in bet\vccn.

The classical city developed around the Acropolis, which now served as thecentre for civic and cultic activity. Beyond its slopes, a circuit, running some6.Skm in circumference, enclosed the urhan area. The latter Thucydides tells us(2.15.3-4), shreWdly ming the evidence of public monuments, was on thesouth side of the Acropolis originally; however, by the time it was fortified ithad spread all round, forming. in the words of Heroootos, a 'Wheel-shaped City'(7,140.2) with the Acropolis as hub.

Like many older Greek communities, Athens had gTm...n around an acropolisseveral kilometres inland 'in order to protect themselves from piracy'(Thucydides 1.7.1). Later, when the need for an outlet to the sea wasimperative, the nearest suitable point on the Attic coast was developed.Flourishing to be<:ome a sort of duplicate city, the Peiraieus lay some 6km tothe south-west, a low rocky peninsula (AI-:te) with three well-protected, deep,natural harbours (Kantharos, Zea and Mounychia). Here ship sheds housed thetriremes of Athens' fleet.

ChronologyThucydides reports the hasty erection of the city walls 'in all directions'(1.93.2), which indicates an attempt to enclose the whole urban area of Athens.In 478 IlC, follOWing the defeat of Xerxes, the Spartans had nOI only urged theAthenians to refrain from building their own fortifications, but also wanted allGreek po/ci.~ outside of the Peloponnese to demolish their existingfortifications. Themistokles held the Spartans off with foot.draggingdiplomacy, haVing instructed the Athenians to raise a circuit. And so, accordingto Thucydides (1.90.3), no public building and no private house were to bespared, and everything that could be of use in the fortifications was torn dowo.The rushed work and the use of old material, Including grave markers, isevident in the remains themselves, but the truth behind the story must be that

The Kt!~eikOs,'the most buutifulsuburb of Adlens' (Thucydides231.5), is named wr I<t!ramo$.the son of Dionysos md Ariadne(Pluuniu U.I).lt is here tNt diebest-preserved section of the CityWall, induding the Dipylon Gueand Sacred Gate. stands.(Author'S collection)

Epiteichismoi

During the Pel0p0nnesian Waran innO¥<ltWe use of se<tpOWer

was the esa.blishmem ofa permanent fortified base(epiteKhismos,'ro-planl4.fonifiution-ill-enemy­terrirory') on or off die enemy'sseaboard from which troOpscould damage. harass. anddiscourage and demOl<llize theenemy. s...ch bases were plantedby the Amenians at PyIos(125 Be). a headland on die westcoast of Messenia, and onKythen. (113 Be). the island JUStoff the south-nstem tip ofLakonia (Thucydides 1.3--5.7.26.d.1.5J-51).The establishmentof these Adlenlan strongholdswithin enemy territory did stirup trouble for the Spartans asthey led to an increase in helotunrest. Yet such a scheme doesnot appear ro be a componentof the Perikleiln stn.tegy. and dieCorinthians first advocaU'd theuse of epiteichismoi in 132 Be(ThuCY'llldes 1.1221 ).In truthPerikles only envisaged the useof epiteichismoi as acountermove if the Sputansattempted to establish a base inAttica (Thucydides 1.142.2-1). asthey eventually did. on Alkibiades'recommendation. at Dekeleia onMount Parnes (113 BC).Vi~ib[e

from Athens itself. this 'fort wasbuilt to threaten and control the

pbin and the rich<m parts of thechora' (Thvcydides 7.19.2).Theposition was well chosen. For,in contrast to their annualineffective invasions ofAttica(131 IIC, 130 Be,12811C, 127 Beand 425 llC). the raids made bythe Spartans and their allies werenow unremitting. Occupiedyear-round. Dekeleia became theepiteichismo~ par excellence(Andokides 1.101.Lysias 14.30.lsokrates 16.10. HellenikaOxyrhynchio 12.3).

17

00

.

""-'-'.--=-

'.

,c:;'/

'.

Peimieus

S.,

'N;';1',::,'

". ":',.'. ~::;'*:':.,.

~: ·Ii,.'

Athens and the Peiraieus (4]) -,Be) if "'-\(">','" /'In its war with Sparta, Athens came to depend on grain from the Greek _ _ ,::.:_) -", ~~ , Icommunities on thel;lJack ,Sea'li'ttoraL but the long Walls connecting t~ -city to t~ ""'......, "", "\"" / '"' ,/the Peir'aieus enabled,'theAthcni~ns:o_~e,ep contact with their naval ~.¥ \-"'- "', ~~-e:;:~h- -'~~/' Athensmerchant vessels even when be,s~~ged:'9_nly the defeat of the war-flert and the The Academy ~~:~':~1f-~~'::~~~threat of starvation w~pld force [!;i~'nY(,[6' capitulate. However, thank~ to Persian ,~,;7' - /"t~'\ ",~'<i1.:~1."l'I~~,,", - ,gold. Sparta finally ~:!R.,~·a:the uppe;;'f!and when Admiral Lysandros ~;;soundingly /.:A ~~"I" ;~-\:::.t~;~'{:~~;i...~f.1;: ;{defeated the Athe~J~~,~,at~ig~~got,ami .(summer :05 Bc).Th~ follo~jng spring ,--,-,~::=:i-~;7 /"" . I' .:, ' ,."'{I,.Lysandros was:abil~:t~n.~..m:-1~~~het1s Into. submission, h\S YICto~.r)8 the ~'f:0"~?'-- ,,/I /;/{;- .., ")\){,"" '~d f"" '~,Hellespont havH~g ;~ftectlvely cut'}:he Athenian s~~ rOl1te from th~.§Ji-c~Se'a.ln .-i'., , ,r ':::~1f',:.~,..~-,,~,1 <,',.~

spite of its !?~,;,taabte navy, aM \~~;.ere,~~~cin o~ tne. L~n?, YY~I~th3J~,e.~iance ~on .< >J4/~,>~ '" .~.:.-r, \\, ~ 1/ '\\seaborne~tJpply~ur;!led,ollt io;:~.~Xt:hens Achilles peeF~I"!:!;" ".:f;,''' ""';,;' .i,' ,<,;"c5:'# /1,. '.X .' \ :I /J I~ ~

*;"~1"J" ,/\J?.jt(Ji~~;: .', ~~ '.' : ;·t(.:.;. .' 'JJ~""~' .'~l"'l'.~ -~; .', .\~ /i' '~\ ~'0,, "".'\ ",:!«""~. ,,,t~/;c""'" ,.,"..! ~" ' 1M' ~c '\'\

".' 0"/' "I;. . J:/ ' ~ x.. ~"" .'.. ,,,""\, "''/' ,'.. . "'" / /- \ -...-'-,,:,,'d';p:__ ',/ 0,-\," ,;'. r ;.1( .. , .' ;.;, ':.~<',-,' " '\1 ''\'':,'-ft',. ,,' ..~ • 'V~" .' " ~ "' II-'~

2::!'''> ...":" ". '" ., .:;;,'..... j{ . '., . .' .'. ' ... ,..... .. ....,,~ ,';;: IY; .' ., "'.. I ,. 'I ". ~".... -, ,~, //~ .' ,.'. ,l., ", '''':t: ~,/, •.•._, .... " ;;./_ •. ~ ••••••• ,\ .\

".,;.. ,"";/."':"~. ,.·~:\-,X' . ~' .. ,;~ .. ' Z// . "'~',." . "':,:' '/~':"f\i.'~I'1 . -,,-,;;~.. '\.// . ". . . ',' .. ,,' ·h., .~.. ., .. ",' ., ",," .. . ...." \\','-'''''';/".--.' ,.,.",'.~.,.,.r.;.;.; " "'-"';>; ·~h.~" ,t,"\ ~. ':.:,:,; N.:'·'·,:,"::: '\, /" :;' ..••• -., ,'''',',.:-' ~ //. ,_ • • '.".i"" .,. - . ',1' . ,,'.' , '.~ •.• - ,.1, ...""""", .¥C ~.! ,." :>_,1/ ", V'" .,'" .,' •.' 'I • !;{i ,;,! , __ . \,

..--,.,-, ,-' ""-¥'-""--,' ',' ~. - '. ,- -," " ••, •• ~", ' /;•• ',", '_-"';"'" """"'J~.",'!II,..-,,--,"!tf. fJ!t /', ., "'.....1;'., ....\' ",\.~ ,.;. ",,,._ •• ,J ~ I" . I' ,. ..--;;-;:.-:-~ ::""!,}i~) ,\:,-::':Ii,;,,1t·':'."-;1'i~:·~if·',·· ~, . ~., ',.:< ":"~: :''f~::-j ",.."f~ ;\' .... '-: '}.~VJ'; ... ~.ti>~~~:, ',',.-- 'I .

-;::., -,!l:'<;,."¥.:I·"IIi<t,,,... r._.~-, ., "" "~':<A ;;-.:1? . f'. '-:\-1% ~~~.....,_.~4-_~: '. 'I + ".>~'fI ".:1,- ..~,,\.'i;· ~~:;;i";>';~',''''~:' ':':~.:. ~~'~:~/ ./'j..' ~.$:N· - -- -~ ~ "III , :;,)"<;~' l..'-: ::~;,;;( '1;':~:'

:". :,:~~""i.'-""'·:"·~::·;',~?,:il<,i..~~;~1V: 13---- ~;. A ';l'f~"\-'~ :~~,'JI ..-.,"" ~ .;,,:.,:": ..\--;.. ' ~:,.. "··'c :,•.,,'ft,',.\y" i;;" ... «,~-~"'r: .~ ~ .:.:.*-'t({;" ,>jJY ·;,;··v'1w ;:..•. ·,i;m...4;~.·, •.

.,. ' ')' r-;.~";'1~-:~';"l"~~"~~'~" -- ~;;'.0·. @iii~\... _ Phalel"on Bay--;iiJ".f";' ~ ,.:.:,/»r;i",,:<~,,~., .'" ',"c,'- . ' • , ._Ii>.~,. 0"',," ,', ,,' \'.", A"il~' "/v~~'"".":" '.'! ~,,~~;•.jjj~. 'itO .>~ : " .•' "',;, ,.~ '\. ":' "''''':'''' '!,;, "....\,~ . ':. .-..J.~~JJ.r.."£f!£~g~ 4":'->. '" -j.,: '.~, <$' lYi ;," "~''''~ .:Q<:;z.. ;,.~j....,.. C·· '" ""1"'£""'''''' "",,,,,', ..", .. ",,",.. ''',~". ........" ,~", - ) f1~" <f ••J;\~]:%«.'~ .;, ,. M-. ':', Phalel"on "''''''~·;·''iI···: '.";1;,',*,'-'>',%"

,",. ~~m9"~~ · ..~ .•Kg.~", ,)" .. '_'~'~~'~;;::;~;~~,==

'-0,--

some of the walls wcre thrown together so that the city could be defended at apinch, and tho'll when the threat passed they were completed at greater leisure.It is, of course, all part of the Themistokles myth. No doubt Thucydides wasright to characterize the great man as 'supreme at doing pred~ly the rightIhing at precisely the right moment' (I. !:i8.3).

With the city itself secure. Themistoklcs then persuaded the Athenians 10complete Ihe development and fortifications of the Peiraieus, which, accordingto Thucydides (1.93.3), had started during Themistokles' archonship of 493 Be.

Thucydides adds (1.93.5) tho'll this circuit was unusual even in the author's day.l1uilt entirely of squ3T(.>(\ blocks, doweled and damped together, the walls wen'so high and thick that th{'y could be defended by a relatively small number ofsecond-rate troops.

The Tllr.'mistoklcan circuit (phase I) was to protr.'ct Athens throughout theI'eloponncsian War, which pitted Athens and its empire against Sparta and itsallies (known collectively as the Peloponnesians). The Long Walls, sometimes{'alled 'legs' (skae, Plutarch KilllOll 13.7), were added before this conniet, first laidout under Kimon and completed under Perikles (".458-440 DC). Initially therewere two long walls (Thucydidcs 1.107.1), one (north) running from Athens toth(' Peiraieus, the other (phaleric) to Phaleron, a broad open bay and site ofAthens' earliest harbour (llerodotos 6.116). Later a third (south) long wall wasadded, the 'middle wall', aboul 180m from and parallel to the firstCity-I'eirajeus wall (plato GOTXias 4SSe with scholion '" Fornara 79A). Betweenthese walls was a roadway. Another, probably the carriage-road mentioned byXenophon (He//miku 2.4.10), ran outside the northern wall. These fortifications,built of well·cut ashlar masonry, were an important clement in Athenian navalstrategy, securely joining landlocked AI hens to the thrcr fortified harbours of itsport. The totai circuit of Athens (City \Vall), the Long "Valls, and the l'ciraieus

A&OVE lEFT The City W;all survives;as succ:es.sive rodes. seen here in

two c:oorse.s of poros bIock:s(ThemIsmkleu! scx:lt» ~nd one ofwell-fOinted polygoouI bIol:ks in blueIimenone (KononQn sode).Abovl!.in c:te;l1Tl)' times«>ne.;an! two

courses from the rebuilding of307-304 Be. (Authors collection)

AllOVE fUGHT The S<lcred Gatespanned the Sacred Way ~nd theEridanos. the stream carried bya vaulted channel (right). Theforecourt. with inner and outer!»SS;lgeS. is 18m deep. with a w~1I

on the flank oppmite the channeland corner towers. (Author'scollection)

19

Limestone column drums from thePeisistratid temple of Olymf>i~nZeus.The project was abandonedwhen the tyrants were expelled in510 Be. and these un-fluted drorTISended up in the Themistolde~n weleof the Cit)' W:ill.mstily erected

20 in -478 ilC. (Author's collection)

was over 30km (178 stadia, Thucydides 2.13.7), which made the Atheniansvirtually impregnable to sieg£" provided they retained control of the sea.

Having r£"Covered from th£" d£"f£"at by Sparta, Konon, with Persian gold, wasable to rebuild sections of the Long Walls and the City Wall (phase 2) tomdown at the end of the Pcloponnesian War (Xenopholl HrJlmika 2.2.20, 23,4.8.9-10). Several inscriptions have been found recording payments tocontractors for material and labour for different sections of these fortifications.TIley are dated by year, from 393 He to 390 fie, and werc apparently actually setinto the brickwork. However, the rebuilding work was probably finished onlyafter 346 OC (Demosthenes 19.125, d. Xenophon Porai 6.1).

Possible repairs to the fortifications took place in order to protect Athensagainst the Macedonians after Chaironela (338 Be). The great haste with whichthis building work was executed is reminiscent of the original Themistokleancircuit, and contemporary speeches imply it was completed in a similar fashion(Lykourgos Against Lookmres 44, Aischines 3.236). It is perhaps at this time thatthe outer wall (praleicllisma) and ditch were added outside the original line. Theexpected attack, however, did not take place.

Demetrios Poliorketes, haVing 'liberated' Athens from Kassandros' garrison(Plutarch Demctrios 8-10), completely overhauled the City Wall (phase 3),while at the same time the Dipylon Gate and prvteiclli.mw were rebuilt from theground up (307-304 t>c.). The building decree of 307/306 lie not only coversrepairs to the existing brickwork but also gives specifications for rebuilding theCity Wall, including the roofing of the wall-walk or f'Oroclos (lG iiz 463.52-74 ==

Harding 134). Winter (1971: 141) sees the roofed p{lrodos as the simplest meansof protecting from the elements the small torsion-spring catapults, probablybolt-shooters, mounted on the curtains: the Athenians were certainly buildingtorsion artillery by 306/305 8e (lG jiz 14878.84-90. ct. 14671\.48-56,16276.328-329). The improved fortifications enabled the Athenians towithstand the siege mounted by Kassandros in 304 IlC (Plutarch Dcmerrios 23.1).

Calibration of bolts for bolt-shooter(katapehes oxybe/es)

I-cubit I cubit (pedIys) - 46L4mm (18.21 ....)

l.S-cublt Most popuQr~. firin1: ~ bolt c.4OOrn

,-wOO

3-wbit

4<Ubit Maximum lenp IlK bolts

NO!l!; m<lximum effeaive ran1:e was och~d throu1:h $ettinZ machjM'$ elevotian al 30 d.grefl

CircuitThe construction method remained basically the same until the mid-6thl't.'ntury AI). A low socle, some 2.Sm wide and rising 1m above ground level, wasbuilt of an inner and outer skin of dressed masonry laid in fairly regularcourses, the space between then filled with earth and rubble. This structuresupported a 7 or 8m-high wall of sun-dried mud-bricks. Upon completion, thewhole surface of the brick superstructure was smoothed with mud andplastered with clay or lime to prevent rainwater from percolating into thejoints. This \'ital process of plastering the brickwork is well attested in4th-century Athenian documents (lG il2 167.82-84,463.81-85,106-109,1663,1664), and Dcmosthenes berates a political rival for squandering state funds on'the batllements, which we are coating with lime plasters' (3.29 with scholion).

Such battlements were probably in the form of a crenellated parapet thatprotf:'Cted a parodo.~. To prevent rainwater from collecting along the top of thebrickwork, and thus dangerously weakening it, the parapet would be covered interracotta coping tiles set on a layer of clay and straw (e.g. Thucydides 3.22.4).The /,arQdos, however, reqUired a marc durable paving of slabs. The Athenianinscription of 307/306 llC ordains that the /'(/f(xlos and other portions subjectedto wear be given a hard covering (possihly stone) imposed on a 'fJnger-thlcknessof sieved eartll' (fG ii 2 463.81-85). The circuit itself was reinforced at vital pointswith two-storeyed. towers some 5m square. About 15 gateways, of which 10 arcknown for certain, and a number of posterns also pierced it.

The circuit was rehuilt several times over the centuries. In reconditioning awall, the brickwork was usually removed or levelled down and the old soele wasbrought higher - due to the rising street levels - by superimposing a new sock:-lew brickwork was then laid on top. The building-document of 3071306 Be

orders the restoration work to include binding the decaying brickwork with'wooden baulk.s' (IG jjl 463.74-75). This certainly figured in a makeshiftaddition to the fortifications of Plataia, thereby 'preventing the structure frombecoming weak as it attained height' (Thucydides 2.75.5, ct. PhilonParaskt'llllsrika 1.13 loak], Vitruvius 1.53 Icharred olive».

City Wall

f'tlllSe 3

393-190 8C

307_104 8C

ThemistokleaJl sode

KonOJllllJl sode

Hellenistic so<:lc

Four counes (n,obble '" poIygomI); possible that uppermost tourw

(polygonal: 'lu:orry) belongs to the (.420 Be repain

One cours<:' blue Pei",elC limestone (coursed polygonlll: brollthed '" poInted.

bevelloo): possible repllin 338 tIC

Two counes poros stnotd'ers. reused blocks llfld small stOr><!! fllIen (quite

regular isodomic ~$hl~r: qu~rry)

S<lcred GilleIt was here that the proce.~sion for the goddess Demeter gathered before it madeits way along the Sacred Way from Athens to ElellSis. The name 'Sacred Gate'(II/em pyle) does not appear in the literary sources before Plutarch, who writesthat Sulla's troops broke through the curtain 'between the Sacred Gate and thePeiraicic Gate' (Silf/O 14.5, ct. Appian MitJlfitlateios 149) and thus took Athensand laid it to waste (86 oc). Ilowever, Sacred Gate, like Sacred Way, is probablya much older name.

The Sacred Gate was a forecourt gateway with four rectangular flankingtowers, the entranceway being recessed some 18m behind the line of the CityWall and furnished wilh two passages, one for the Eridanos stream, and one forthe Sacred Way. Attackers would have been compelled to advance along thelatter passage, shut in between the southem flanking wall and lhe stream, withtheir right (unshielded) side, moreover, exposed to flanking fire from the top ofthe wall along the northern bank. 21

The Dipylon Gate siu at the end ofa forecourt. open on~ we$t andproteued by fou~ corner towersand twO flanking walls. A centn.1pie<" separ.l.tes the double ptes. Theoutet". Y;l.ulted &ates we,.., added in

the I~t cenrury 1lC. (Author'scollection)

Sacred Gate

Plu~e I

Phase 2

~78 8C

393-390 Be

307-30<1 IS';

Themiuoldunpt~

Kononian gateway

Hellenistic: ptew3y

Two entrances with forecotll"t, each crowned with parodas to deff!nd p,a...age

of Eridano~ ~nd n,.."et ~ep~r.ttely; sode of two found~tion courses paros. and

two uppe~ COU~le, hard limestooe; repall'S c.420 Be

Extensi.e altcr.l.tions: Eridano, re.channelled to provide ~ wider ,treet:b~.ltion built (concept of scp~r~te defence for stream and ,treCI ab3ndoned):

.oele of three courSeS reddi,h limestone (header< & stretchers: quarry>

tooled. dr.tftC'd margins): possible n:p;lirs 338 IlC

Complete overhaul: brter coc-ner ~n. fenestn.led and labl.,...roofe<l

(i.e. artillery)

22

Oipylon GateThe term 'Dipylon' first appears in a decrC<' (lG ii2 6738.4) dated to 278/277 1lC;Originally the gateway was called the Thriasian Gate (or Gates) as the road outof it led to the Thriasian plain at Eleusis (Harpokration Ll'xicol1 .~.I'.

Anthemokritos, d. lsaios [Forster fro 24]). This forecourt gateway, the largest inGrccre (1 ,800m2), was the principal entrance of Athem. The fact that it wasused during the Pallathcnaic Festival is probably the main reason for its size.

The I'anathenaic proc'cssion assembled besid{' the gateway, and poSSibly inthe forecourt itself. According to an inscribed document (IG ij2 :n4.24-2S), themeat from the great sacrifice to Athena, the hecatomb, was distributed here.I.arge numbers of postholes have been found in the for('("ourt and it seems thatthese would have supported the tents in which the Athenians feasted, Likewise,as the arterial roads to Thebes and Corinth started here, the spacious (orecourtserved as a convenient meeting and departure point. Here travellers couldpurchase last minute provisions or souvenirs from hustlers, or refreshthemselves and their animals at the nearby fountain house. Thc Roman satiristlucian records (DitIIOSIl/'S uf tl/(' CourteslIlIS 4.3) that lovers often scribbled theirerotic greetings on the forecourt walls.

ObViously contrivcd to impress citizens and visitors alike, the Dipylon Gatealso had the potential to frustrate would-be attackers. The forccourt wascovered at each of its four corners by rectangular towers, and between these rantwo flank walls I;'at'h crowned by a pawdoJ, In wartime, therefore, thist"ul-de-sac functioned as a deadly trap for anyone approaching with hostileintent, sllbjecting attackers to crossEre in every direction from high up, as were,

for example, the JX'nned troops of I'hllip V of ~...lacedon when they attemptedto storm Athens in 200 lIC (Livy 31.24,9-16).

Although the ground plan essenlially remains the same throughout, theDipylon Gate does exhibit two major building phases, the construction phaseof 478 tIC and a rebuilding at the end of Ihe 4th century tIC. Initially a singlepair of gates located al Ihe inner end of the cul-de-sac - hence Ihe term'I)ipylon' - secured the Themistoklean gateway. In the late Ilellenislic period,however, a second pair of vaulted gales was added to the front, therebyconverting the cul-de-sac into a cage.

Oipylon Gate

P>,,,. I '178 IIC

307-30'l8(:

Themistoklean CileW<lY lnnu double F1tc= (non·vaulted); fOllr .null rKD.ngubr comc=r towc=n WIth

"'It·front (TOWllr C) proJllCting on unshielded side; poros sode. mud·bnck

.uperstruew....

Same plan but solid COflstruction (i.e. Irtillery) in cOflglomerate blockssheathed with blue PelnJelc limestone; I~rger corner towers. fenestrated and

gable-roofed

. ,, , ,1

\

This nurtllc= altilr .tands behindthe Dipylorl Gate. It is de(jiutedto Zeu. Herbios (pnlteCtor offorecouru). Hennes (guardlifl oftI"ilVellers) and thc= c=ponymou. heroAkamas. honoured because theg;ot~ Ii ... in the ~elk6s.a demc belonl'ng 10 the [rib<!Alwnantis. (Author's collection) 23

14

The proreidlisma (right) and ditch,now partially back-filled, aS$ociatedwith it. Added after Chairooela, thisstane OUtwOrI< made it difficult farbesiegers to bring siege equipmenttOO clase to the ThemistCIkluncircuit. (Author's collection)

PrQteic:1Ji,Sma

This was an outer line of defence 7 to 8m forward of the Themisloklean circuit,consiSting of a stone wall (conglomerate; alternating headers and stretchers)and thto' ditch, rectangular in section and about 8m wide and 4m deep,associated with it. With the development of mechanical warfare by theMacedonians the function of combined ditch and brea.'itwork is be.'il .'ieen as amore positive countermeasure, other than by sallying forth and physicallydestroying them, of keeping mobile .'iil:·gc machines away from th", City Wall,or at least slowing down their approach. Additionally, the ditch would haveserved as an effective deterrent to mining.

The proteichismfl, however, would not have afforded the City Wall muchprotection against artillery as it still lay within the effective range of enemymachines mounted on the outer edge of the defensive system. As alreadynoted, one of the aims of the bUilding programme of 307/306 Be was to prOvidefor the mounting of torsion-spring catapult.<; on the curtains to keep theattacker'S machines as far away from the City Wall as possible. The confines ofthe parodos limited the size of these catapults, but the height of their placementensured that they could allen targto't larger besieging machines, especially thestone-throwing variety, before their own walls were in range. Military engineers

CaJibration of stone-shot for stone-thrower(katapeltes lithobOlos)

• 10 minae., IS miooe.. 20 minae... 30 mitloe

"""" ..-T 1 Went (lDlanron) '" 60 mirI<le

.T 10 minoe pkn; 1 Went (i.e. 70 rninat')

The above CIlljbre< are baled on the 353 stones discovered outside the al\Cie<1t circuit of Rhades.

The,e Rhodian shot of blue crystailine limestone were c",efully inscribed with letter, indic3ting

their weight. most af which ltill show trace. af red paint applied ta the il\Cilianl to make theweight-marlts readily visible. Oolib",tion of shot was ~nerally one of a graduated series, which

rose by dift"erences of 5 or 10 rninoe up to a common rna><mum af 60 nMae by the mid-3rd

cenrury IlC (Philon~ 1.29, 7o-7).Thirty~ d>o<. CO\IId be b.unc~ most ~ectrteIy

0'1'0'I" ~n below 400m ~,accordin& to Philon (II. 200 1Ie),)O.rmna. enginn 1lave the mOstappropriate dimensians and are maSl forceful in their blo-.;' (1'cIiCIrlt:itil1l 96.10). For inscol\Ce, an

the ba.is af the shot found, the most popubr calibre, at Rhodes appear tCI have been thase af

25 miMe (85 shot) and 30 mina" (83 shot).

working for I'hillp 11 of Macedon had succeeded inadding torsion to the catapult, thus making itpossible to hurl large stones against city wal15.Philip's first use of the torsion-spring catapult, at thesieges of Perinthos and Byzantium (340 1lC), wasunsuccessful (Diodoros 16.74.2-76.4, 77.2-3).Alexander would, however, later use it with greatersuccess, as would the Successors of Alexander.

Any troops defending the breastwork wouldnormally have been withdrawn through posterns inthe main circuit if the proteicllislIIlI was in danger ofbeing overrun. Between the circuit and theproteic1lis/lm the land sloped sharply, and here adumpl'd filling was thrown in to reinforce thepTOteicllisl/la and provide an even level for athoroughfare for wheeled traffic, the so-called Ring Stre€t. This road encircledthe whole city and linked the suburbs. For Sokrates, according to Plato (f_ysiils203a), this was the quickest route from the Academy to the Lykeion.

Gyphtokastro (Attica)Abandoning the Perlklean city-based defence stralegy, the Alhenians beganbuilding a series of pockel-sized frontier defences as a means to repel small raidsand slow down the advance of a largt' invading force. Tht' chit'f purpose ofthese strongholds. therefore, was to command a road, a particubr strip of land,or a stretch of vulnerable coastline. Usually situated in remote regions that hadno importance s.we from the military point of view. the circuit was generallyvery compact, and there was nothing inside the walls except barracks forhousing troops and cisterns for storing rainwater. The border fort at Eleutherai,commonly Gyphtokastro ('gypsy castle), in north-western Attica is t}'pical ofsuch military strongholds,

TopographyGyphtokastro was built to crown a steep and rocky knoll on the south side ofthe Dryoskephalai (Kaza) Pass, the major access route leading north-southbetween the Klthairon and Parnes ranges, and guarded the road from Thebesvia Plataia to Athens. Anyone paSsing from central Greece to the Peloponneschad to come through this pass, which ,vas known in antiquity as the 'road by

Ring Street. viewed from Tower C.Dipyloo G~te.This thorougt>f~re.

which ran between the City Wall(Mgt'll) and the protcichismo (left).encompused Athens and ga~

access to its suburos. Sokratesfamously used It to get from theAcademy to the Lykeion. (Author'scollection)

Stone shot (v;r,rious calibre~)

for Stone-throwers. AthenianKerameik6s. These stones arecarefully shaped spheres. althoughrough stones were sometimes givena coating of clay to render themspherical, to ensure efficientballistics. (Author's collection)

25

26

1

IGyphtob.stro was svategical'ylocated above the Dr)'QskephaJaiPass. the principal route leadingnorth-south between Mount ParnesMId Mount Kithairon, througtl whichran the highway from Athens toPlatllia.The fon is seen here lookingsouth-un from the modem road.(Auth<;>r"s collection)

Anyone WIshing to p3SS fromcentral Greece to the Peloponnesehad to tome through theDryoskephalai (Kiu) Pan.The p,lssis seen here looking oorth-westtowards the Klthairon range lromTOWilr I on the north wall ofGyphtokolstro. (AUthor's collection)

E1cuthcrai' (Thucydidcs 3.24.2, Xcnophon Hrllt'lIi1w5...1.14, Arrian Allabasis 1.7.9, I'ausanias 9.1.6, 2.1-2).

The town of £leUlherai itself, according to bothStrabo (9.2.31) ami Pausanias (1.38.8-9), at timesbelonged to Boiotia and at times to Athens. On theother hand. Diodoros (4.2.6, 3.1), Pliny ("'tlil/m/is

histor;tl -1.7.26) and Apollodoros (3.5.5) all refer 10 itas Roiotian. The slatus of Eleutherai OIl anyoneperiod is by no means clear. II seems likely that theAthenians had control late in the 6th century Be,

probably after they defeated the Boiotians in 506 IlC(lG fI 501 = Fornara 42, lIerodotos 5.77, cf. 6.108,Thucydides 3.55.1). [n the following century acitizen from E'.leulherai appears on an Atheniancasualty list (1G i2 9013 11.96-97), bUI olhenvise the

little evidence we have suggests it was under noiolian control. Bolh Herodotos(5.74.2) and Thucydides (Z.HI.2), for instance, recognize Ginoe - and nolE1eutherai - as the limit of Attica.

CircuitBy the early 4th century lle, this strategic site had been furnished with afIVe-room blockhouse with thick walls built in a mannered pOlygonal masonrystyle with drafted margins. Somewhat later, prObably soon after 370 He, aproper l"iKuit was erected. This followed the contours of the hillock closely andendosed an area measuring roughly 'lOOm north-south by 275m <,ast-west.Well-built forecourt gateways opened toward the north-w<'st ami south---ea,t,the former bearing a faint inscription indicating that it led to Plataia. Twoposterns in the north wall and one in the south wall prOVided additional eXits.

Athenian or Boiotian?The fort features in discussions of the defences of Attica (Obcr 1985: 160-163),though a case can be made that it is aClually Hoiotian, built when £pameinondasIe(] the Thebans to the hegemony of Greece (371-362 ue). The trapezoidalmasonry in hard grey limestone blocks with quarry faces finds its best parallelsin Ikliotia rather than Attica (Cooper 1986: 195, Harding 1988: 61-71, camp1991: 199-202, d. Ober 1987: 601-603, 1989: 294-301). On the other hand, thenorth wall, studded \"ith rectangular lowers every 30m or $0, faces towardsBoiolia not Attica, and its defenders could fire projectiles at ('n('my soldierscoming through the pass. In comparison, the south wall has only three towers.

Across the plain some 5km 10 the soulh.cast OIl ~azi siands lhe remains ofa free-standing tower. This five-storey tower once commanded the route into 27

AtUca from the Dryoskephalai Pass. Along the same road and about 2.5kmfurther north-cast, was the fortified Attic dl'll!e of Oinoc (MyoupoliS), whichhad been walled by the start of the l'cloponnesian War at the latest (Thucydides2.18.2). To the north-cast, some 400m higher on Mount Parnes (Parnitha) andoverlooking a fertile upland valley (Skourta plain), is the slight remains of theAttic border fort of Panakton (Kavilsala). This stronghold was taken bytreachery by the Boiotians during the Peloponnesian Wilr ilnd demollshe(lbefore it was returned to the Athenians as part of the settlement of the Peaceof J'\ikias in 4221421 IlC (Thucydides 5.3.5, 18.7, 355, 36.2, 40.1-2, 42.1-2,44.3, Plutarch Afkibi(/(It!s 14.4). Several inscriptions (IG ji2 1299, 1303-05, 2971,d. Demosthenes 19.326,54.3-5) mention the Athenian garrisons that manned

18 the rebuilt fort during the "th and 3rd centuries Be_

LHT A good ~tretch of the! northwall of Gypht0k3stro stands wellpreserved, with recungular towersevery 30m or so. Seer! here, lookingRSt-south-east from the gr;,veltr.lck up to the ~jte, are To_rs 2to ... (Author"s collection)

88.OW lEfT Tower$ 6 ""d 7 weref'r$(·genenuon artillery towers.Each consisted of twO clwnbersabove a solid base.The lowe.­chamber was not for catapults ­these were housed in mefen~tr.lted upP"'f" chamber ~ butfor arche:r$. Tower 6 is seen herefrom Tower 7. (Author's Collection)

~ .

.",,'

ASOVE Towers 2 to Shaveground-floor chambers withoutloops or windows, and se<:ondchamber$ at pllrlldll5 level witharrow slits. They were not,therefore, designed to houseCou:apults but is bawe·sutions forarchers. Tower S is seen here fromTower~. (Author's collection)

GarrisonBy the 3705 RC (Aischines 2.167) lhe Alheniam. had introduced epl/ebeia, atwo.-year paramilitary service for all 18- and 19-year-old citizen youths orephebes (t'pllt'b{)/). FoUowing the defeat at Chaironeia (338 oc), lpJu'beia wasformalized by Epikrates' iaw of 336/335 Be (I Iarpokration Lexicon s. v. Epikrates),and from then at least, if not before, service as an ephebe was not oniycompulsory but also involved garrison duty.

The Aristotelian AthellaiOIl {Joliteia (42.3-5) describes in detail the trainingephebes underwent. Thc first year was takcn up with a cycle of athleticcontcsts, mainly footraces such as the hoplirodmmos, a 4(X)m racc in which thccompetitors carried a hopiite shield and wore a hclmct and, originally, grcaves.There werc also competItions for the pyrrl,idle (pyrrhic dance), a kind ofmilitary ballet described by Plato as 'movements that evade blows and missilcsby dodging, yielding, leaping, landl crouching, and the opposite offensivepostures of striking with missiles, arrows, and spears, and all sorts of blows'(Laws 815a). As well as USing athletics as a military preparation, the ephebesalso received from their instructors training in the use of hoplite weapons aswell as the bow, the javelin and the sling (AlhellaiOIl politeia 42.3).

At the beginning of the second year the cphcbcs wcrc issucd, at stateexpensc,.a shield, a spear, a military cloak (clila",ys) and a broad-brimmcd hat(pela_~os).The ephebcs were now ready to practise their newly acquired sklUs inthe field. According to the Atl/i'/I(/ioll po/iteia (42.4) they proVided permanentgarrisons for the border forts and walchtowers. Some also patrolled themountainous borderlands and were called penpoloi ('those who travel about'),as did the orator Aischines, who, after boyhood, 'became a perip%s of thisclJiJra for two years' (2.167).

A80VE LEFT The porodos runningbetween Towers 3 3nd " on thenorth wall of Gyphtokasuo. Seenhere is the side door Wt g3veaccess to the second chamber ofTower 4 from the porodos. whichwould haVll been protected bya crenellated parapet. (Authorscollection)

"'!lOVE RIGHT The postern. externalview, hard by Tower 2. north wallof GyphtokastrO. When used forsorties. troops leaving the fortwould have had their right(unshielded) side covered by thetower and those stationed witl1in.(Author·s coile<:tion)

29

,-.-j30

ABOVE' Aerial view of Mantineialooking south-west. The Tegea Gate(top left) is a r,ne e~ample ofgateway and tower arrangement.Note also the posterns in the flanksof the towers along the east wall,(Author's collection)

RIGHT An ~rrow slit in the frontw~1I of the ground·floor chamber ofTower 2. Gyphtokamo.This w~s cutat a much Incr date (note repairsCO sconew<:>rk), as the roweroriginally lacked loops at this level.(Author's collection)

Mantineia (Arcadia)Following Sparta's defeat at Leuktra CUI Be) the scattered Mantinei'lnS, withThe-han aid, returned to the city previously destroyed t>y til ... Spartan kingAgC$ipoliS. As well as raising the extensive fortifications whose ruins we seetoday, they also rearranged the course of the Ophis so that it hecame a defenceinstead of a danger. The Mantineians WNe obviously concerned with a\'oiding

a repetition of tht' disaster of 385 ftC, when Agesipolisdamned the river and the rising waters caused a slrelchof the mud-brick fortifications 10 collapse.

Topograph)'The existence of Mantineia was important because thesecurity of its city walls encouraged Manlineianautonomy in foreign policy and the development of anindependent democratic political system that washostile 10 Sparta (Xenopholl Helfmika 5.2.1-2, cf.Thucydides 5.29.1). II was ShOTtly after the PersianWars, according to Straoo (83.2), that the Mantineiansleft their fin' village settlements (ko",m) and united asone polis, an event that can be linked with theestablishment of democracy in Mantinl'ia (AristotlePolitics 1318lW-5). If political and physical union(splOikismos) led to the adoption of a democraticconstitution, then life in village settlements fosteredoligarchic rule that encouraged loyalty to Sparta's owninterests (pausanias 8.8.9, 10, Xenophon lleUmika5.2.7,6.4.18, d. 53-5).

As an artificial foundation Mantinl'ia lacked anacropolis. Thus, albeit with some natural protectionfrom a small river, the ~·Iantinl.'iansbuilt their city onwhat was, for Arcadia, praetiGllIy level ground. Situatedin eastern Arcadia, the cllom of the Mantiiieians was ahare upland plain (629m) enclosed by an i1mphitheatreof barren mountains. This alpine plain, whoS(' terrainand location made it a convenient meeting place forarmies, often became the cockpit in which pro- andanti-Spartan alliances settled their djffl.'f(>nce.~ (418 1lC,370/369 Be, 362 tIC).

31

CircuitThe circuit of the re-founded city is elliptical in form, with a perimeter of nearly4km enclosing an area of some l.24km2, and generally follows the 5<lme linesas its Sth-century predecessor (Scranton 1941: 57-59). The walls, encircled bythe dh'ertcd Ophis except for a short distance on the south-east, were buill outof mud-brick. The brid.;work. some 4.05 to Sm in \o\idth, rested upon a highstone soc!e of large rectangular or polygonal blocks holding a fill of fieldstoncsand earth. O\'er 120 square lowers reinforced the circuit, of which 118 havebeen traced, placed about 26m apart, and 10 gateways, mostly of the 'overlap'type, pierced its line. Gateways of this type did not have direct access, but weredesigned so that the entry ran more or less parallel to tile circuit for severalmetres.

As Mantineia stood entirely on a level plain, it might be reasonable to expectthe gateways to have been planned with flanking towers on the attacker's right(unshielded) side. Actually, the reverse is Ihe case. It is true that at least someof the gateways had a second tower on lhe inner wall, just outside the entranceto the corridor. The placing of the primary tower on the attacker's left side,however, does suggest thai even on level ground the' major virtue of suchgateways lay in compelling the enemy to advance for some diStance below theline of the main wall.

An unusual feature for the 4th century DC - it would become fairly commonin Hellenistlc times - was the positioning of posterns in lhe tlanks of towers.Promoted by Epameinondas. the Thcban srmtcgos and leading soldier of th~'

day, new Mantineia probably incorporated in its defensive system all the mostup-to-date ideas. The use of the Ophis as a wet moat encircling the city was astroke of genius. Likewise, instead of plaCing posterns in the curtains under the

32 shelter of a neighbouring tower, the designers c1e\'Crly incorporated them in

Mantineia'~ sode. of regular­cour~ed polygonal ma~onry, wasexceptionally high owing to thewet nature of the ternin.The riverOphis (SlQke') was re-routed so:.u to form a ~t moat uound there--founded city. (Author'scollection)

the ground-floor chambers of the towers them5Clves.Defending troops issuing from these openings wouldhave been in greatest danger at the moment theyemerged, while they were still in single file. To offset thisas far as POSSible, the posterns were set in the right flankof the tower (fil<:ing the field). Thus the defenders, as theyemerged, presented their shil'lded .~ides to the enemy.

Messene (Messenia)After three centuries of ernlavement by the Spartans, the:\iessenians were liberated by Epameinondas andreacquired their own polis; the foundation of Messenewould be an outward and very visible sign of Sparta'shumiliation. This was not the only post-Leuktra blowthat Eparneinondas was abll' to inflict on Sparta. He alsosupervised the t'Onstruction of Megalopolis in southernArcadia and initiated the re-founding of Mantineia.Messene, with t.,·legalopolis and Mantincia, completedthe strategic barrier to contain the Spartans.

TopographySituated in the famously fertile Stenyklaros plain ofMessenia (Tyrtaios [West fro 5], Strabo 8.5.6), Messenl' sitsin a hollow bl'twecn tint''' hills, Eva to the south-east,Psoriari to the west and !thorne to the north. The site hdominated by the summit of !thorne (802m), a naturalstronghold and thus an obvious choice for an acropolis.Ithome ('step') had figured as a refuge in the nrst(c.736-71611C) and Third ((.464-460 1lC) Messenian wars.

ChronologyThe literary l'vidence (Diodoros 15.66.1, 6, 67.1,PJusanias 4.27.5-7) imparts thal the city was founded,ami the bUilding of the fortificaUons begun, in 369 Be

under the auspices of Epameinondas. Having restored theMessenians to their territory, he actively encouraged

1'<140/( BoiotWls had a reputiltion ugluttonous boors, but Epameinonduwu. in the opinion of a good judge($irWalter Raleigh). the greatestof the ancient Greeks. His fourinvasions of the Peloponneseresulted in the new cities ofMes.-ene. Megalopolis and Mantineia.(Aumor-'s collection)

IlJGIoIT The ~t w:oll of Mess_.looking east.The oowers here aresemicircular. u the 'ColSde' (left). orre<;taJ1gular. as Tower N (right).Semicircular towers are normally tobe found at salient angles along theCircuit- (Author'S collection)

3J

MesseneThe circuit of Messene went up in the winter of 369 Be

after Epameinoodas invaded Sparu and then proceededover Mount Taygeros to liberate Messenia. Built withincredible rapidity by the combined Theban and Argive

armies. as well as the exiled Messenians who had beEninvited to return and establish an Independent state,Mess~e was the southernmost link in a defensive ch<lin

'of ~Ied cities intended [0 keep the Spartans at bay.The

-:

..-.~. ""::e$'~

Temple '"":I':! "" ~ .....Temp:le of As'dlilPius _ • _.. "'-

~ cear... . .......:f• •"Ij. ~ -'I;o;l .. ~1Uo.... ~. ~scl~eioo," ""= Agora~"I,.- "!.. - .;:;-~ ....

lL· ... .... - .... _... /~

- .. <C'>Q _ ~.. ..~

0.

TheOl.tre

•

$

~_"_.;'''' III

.fl'"" .... .......

34

fortifICationS. me epitome of Greek milieu-y architecwre,made me of me slopes of Mount Ithorne and weredesigned to encompass enough open land far me citizens

to rear livesooc.k and cultivate crops.The waIls. all stone

f ~ Altar of Zeus

"

built to a keight of same 7 to 9m. were reinforced byprojecting rowers set at irTegUlar interVals; resting an solidbases these were either- one srorey with windows or two

storeyS with loops in me Iawe.- and windows in me upper.

•. ,..~..".I

••

, <

;~4

.,~:;.:: .- < ,

I: ~'-.<

".)'.,.

.~..':.,•••

=1•..,

..... ....•

35

l6

The west wall of Messene.1ooItin&wuth tow.irds Tower N.Thisstructure is al1 excellent exa.mpleof a fir>t·gel1entiol1 artillery tower.B.uilt with a solid base. me tOWl!rconsisted of a single chamber,housing nOn-tOrsion catapults.surmounted by a fighting-platformroof. (Authors collection)

them 10 build dty walls, a project apparently completed in a mere 85 days.Lawrence (1979: 382-85) argues coherently for a single main period ofbuilding, and his stand for an Epameinondean date for the circuit is supportedby Ober (1987: 572). There are those, however, who advocate a considerablylater date for the walls now visible. Marsden (1969: 127-38) has suggested, onstylistiC grounds, that the north wall was a Hellenistic rebuilding.

CircuitThe rambling circuit, some 9.Skm long, follows the line of the ridge descendingfrom Ithome and was continuous except at various inacces,o;ible points. Plannedto enclose arable land, it doubtless served also as a refuge for the surroundingpopulation in times of danger. Its stone walls consist of an outer and innerfacing of un-mortared squared blocks, set some 2.5m apart and packed with arubble core. The circuit is reinforced at irregular intervals (30-90m) byprojecting towers. These are rectangular or, at salient angles, semicircular andarc excellent examples of first-generation artillery towers.

Tower N, a well-preserved tower on the west wall, originally stood 901 highand consisted of a single chamber surmounted by a fighting platform, on asolid base, The masonry of the tower and associated curtain-wall is isodomictrapezoidal. Entry to the chamber was through two side doors from the parodoi,which ran behind crenellated parapets. The chamber has four small pentagonal....indows that allowed for the provision of non-torsion catapults inside thetower. The windows, two in front and one in each sidewall, splay on the insideand thus resemble overlarge arrow slits.

TO\...er L, the best-preserved tower on the north wall, originally stood 12.5mhigh and consisted of two chambers above a solid basc. The masonry of the towerand associated curtain-wall is isodomic ashlar. Entry into the tower was by a doorin either sidewall of the lower chamber. The doors led to parodoi protlXted bycrenellated parapets. Access to the upper chamber was probably via a ladder andtrapdoor from the lower chamber. The lower chamber has four arrow slits, two infront and one in each sidewall, which splay internaily. The upper chamber iseqUipped ....ith four small rectangular window'S, two in front and two in each

'iidewall, which allowcd for the provision of non-torsion catapults inside the tower.As open windows, unlikc loops, had the disadvantage of exposing defenders toenemy missiles these wcrc pwtet"ted by double-leafed, outward-opening,side-swinging shutters attached to the outside of the tower wall.

The architects also dispensed with the fighting-platform roof and insteademployed a gabled roof. which was easier to make watertight and thus keepmachines dry. The fighting platforms at towers along the west wall allowed thedefenders to fire upon enemy troops who approached close enough to thecircuit to be outside the beaten zone of catapults, which could not be depressedmuch helow the horizontal. Presumably in the case of the gable-roofed towersof the north wall, the designers felt that bolts fired laterally from neighbouringtowers, in conjunction with hand-fired missiles shot by defenders on theparodoi, would provide adequate security against this particular threat.

Arcadian GateOf the four gateways Ihat have been distinguished, the Arcadian Gate is themost impresSive. Gateways in gem'ral proVided both problems (since they

The 'CastJe', weSt wall of Mes~ene_

Towers of ~emidf'(:ularplan werestronger. but more difficult toconstruct.They also had theadvantage of providing defendenwith better fields of vision and fire.(AuthOf"s collection)

37

38

ABOVl: LEfT One of the twO sidedoors of the 'Castle', Menene.Theenormous circuit made use of theslopes of three hills - Ilere it (limbsPsoriari - and was designed toenvelop enoogh open land to enablethe inhabitants to raise crops andlivenock. (Author's collection)

ABOVE ~IGHT Tower L. north wallof Melsene. When chambers forartillery surmounted towers,roofs were necessary to keepthe machines within clry.A gabledroof. as here. was easier to makewatertight than a fighting-platformroof. (Author's collection)

constitute an obvious weakness In any fortification system) and opportunitiesfor monumental embellishml'nt as here with the Arcadian Gale.

The gateway consists of an outer anJ inner entrance, separated by it circularforecourt. Square towers, 10m apart, llanked the outer entrance, which isalmost 5m wide. The forccourt, 19m in diameter, is still remarkable for theperfection of its masonry, laid dry on a baSe of two massive courses. On eitherside, near the outer entrance, is a niche for the protecting deities, one doubtlesstile Hermes noted by Pausanias (4.:-13.3). The inner entrance was in the form ofa pair of two-leaved gates separated by a central post, an enormous monolithnow partly fallen. All the evidence sllggests that till' gateway was totallydemolished and rebuilt on a hlrger and more complex senle sometime around300 llC (Scranton 1941: 128-29).

Other fortificationsAigosthena (Mega rid)Aigosthena is at the eastern end of the Corinthian Gulf on the slopes of MountKithairon. The settlement, which certainly existed by the 8th century Be, wasin the territory of Megara and, although rather remote, controlled the directbut dimcult route between Boiotia and the PeJoponnese. Xenophon (Hl'Ileuikl/5.4.18,6.4.26) records that the Spartans P.1SSed through Aigosthena in 378 IlCand after their defeat at I.euktra in 371 Be. Aigosthena is seldom mentionedotherwise and consequently it is not clear when and why the fortificationswere built. Dates in the mid-4th century Be (Megarian with Athenian aid), thelate 4th century Be (Demetrios Poliorketes), and the mid-]rd century Be

(Achaian League) have been proposed on the basis of their architectural style.

Tower L, MesseneThe walls of Messene are considered the finestexample of 'lth-<entury military architecture, and bythe second.(juarter of the century Greek engineershad designed towers to accommodate artillery thatshot from shuttered windows. The confines of thetowers and small apertures of the windows limitedthe size of the catapults, but the great attitude oftheir placement more than made up for this and

ensured that they could often target larger besiegingengines before their own walls were in range.Theupper windows were larger to allow smallIlOn-torsion catapulu to fire from them, but thelower ones were just loops for archers.The roof was

gabled to keep the machines dry, while the base wassolid so is to support their weight. The misonry ofthe tower was isodomic ashlar in hard grey limestone.

39

40

MCIYl: un The Arudian Gate,not"th ~I of Me,$l'J'Ie.Iooki"lUSt cowards Tower L This haddouble entranceways separatedby VI enclosed drcular forecourtin which an enemy who h.adpenetrated would be crapped.Flanking towers strengthened thesystem further. (Author's collection)

ABOVE RJGHT Tower A,Algosthena.Once three Storeys high. the top(hamber hou,ed torsion catapults.behind six <huuereG w1ndOW$.Archers we.... SGuoned on thetwO storey'S betow. The UlWef"

had a gabled roof and a solidbase. (Author-'s wllectiofl)

The best-preserved section of the fortifications, which enclosed a rectanglesome 550 by 180m, is on the east side of the acropolis. Tower A, 3t the south­eastern angle of the drcuit and built of limestone and reddish conglomerate,was 9mz and 18m high. Just beneath the gabled roof were six shutteredwindows, dearly discernible until the earthquake of 1981, evidently forcatapults. Archers were stationed on the two storeys below and the tower hada solid base. Ashlar isodomic masonry was used for the towers (eight in total),mostly trapewi,1al with occasional polygonal blocks for tile curtains. The maingateway was by Tower F, between the acropolis and fortified lower city, while apostern stood between towers Band C on the outer east wall. Few traces of thewall on the south side of the lower city are evidtmt, but the north wall is stillill situ and runs down to the sea, a distance of somt' 450m, and is studded witheiglll rectangular towers and pierced by two gateways.

Eleusis (Attica)Ancient F.Jeusis lies on the shore of a large bay 21 km west of Athens, It was animportant tleme site at the edge of the Thriasian plain as well as the location ofa sanctuary dedicated to Demeter, the godd~s of corn. Her cult, the EleusinianMysteries, was one of the most successful in the Greek world and for a timerivalled Christianity in popularity.

Eleusis was the westernmost Attic tlcllle and thus something of an outpostfacing the Pcloponne.~c, home of such long-standing enemies as the Megarians,Corinthians and Spartans. Th(' sanctuary itself was protected by substantial

fortifications, which had several building phases, starting in the mid·6thcentury BC under the Peisistratid tyrants of Athens. The acropolis was alsowalled, and Eleusis was one of the principal Attic border forts from at least asearly as the 4th century IIC.

The Peisistratid circuit replaced and extended an earlier GeometrJc circuit(e7Sa 1lC) with much stronger walls of sun-dried mud-brick on a polygonalstone socle. A Persian breach in the brickwork was repaired under Kimon(479-461 lie) with limestone masonry in alternately wide and narrow courses(pseudo-imomlc), based directly on the Peisistratid sodc. The circuit wasextended under Perikles, and again in the 4th century lie. The so-calledLykourgan Wall (c.370-360 1lC) was a sode of four slightly receding courses inpecked Eleusinian stone upon which were set Iooled courses of yellow poros.This was probably a conSCious matching of the earlier Periklean style. Bothextensions also utilized circular comer-towers.

At EletJsis the tyrant Peisistratos(d. 527 &e) enclosed the ...n~tU;lry01 Demeter with a substantialcircuit. This was built with a lowsocle of limestone blocks ~et inpolygonal style. whi<h earTiedseYeral metres of sun-driedmud-brick. (Authors collection)

A Persian bruch In the PeiSistratidcircuit was n!paired. under Kimon.witll limestone masonry. For thePersians' 'n.nhest west in Europe'(Herodotos 9.'4) was marked by:I ... id into me Megand. sackingEreusis en route. (Authorscollection)

__1:...--

.. --

-.,,_ ..---,

-\

1--

At Eleusis tl'le forofia.uoos wereextended UI'lde1' Penkles ;and Ipin

in the '!th cenwry ac. This 'S the'lyi«>urpll WlIJr (370-360 acj, asock! of fou~ courses in peckedEJeusinian nOM upon which sittooled courses of $One<' ycllowporos. (Authors collel;uOll)

42

UFT A common, cheap ;and effectivebuilding material, anc;ent mud-brickrarely survives today. He.... we see'melted' brickwori< resting on asode of'lesbian masonry', theNorth Tower of the West Gate,Eretria. (Author's collection)

IlEl.OW The e,reubr tOWN. north~II of the fon. at PhyIe. Suchtowf!f'S, accordinz to VIt1\lYiu~

(I.S.S), a~ more resistant to

b;lttenng rams.They also,;as he.....

provtded the defence with bettertields of fi ..... (Audlor's collection)

Eretria (Euboia)[retria, next to Chalkis, was the prindpal polis of Euboia_The second larg~t island in the Aegean, F.uboia extendsnorth~w~t to south-cast for over ISOkm almost parallel(and dose) to the mainland of central Greece and was,from the late 5th century Il(;onwards, jOined to Boiotia bya succession of bridges across the narrow Euripos channel.

Eretria was founded (c.82S 1lC) on a strategic site withacropolis, natural harbour, access to fertile land, andcontrol of the island's main east-west land route. Closepolitical ties with Athens began in the 6th century Be. [nretribution for aiding the revolt of Persia's Greek subjects(498 1lC), a Persian expedition captured and sacked thecity (490 I\C). Fretria now entered the Athens-dominatedambit of the Delian League, later revolting (447/446 l\c),whereupon the Athenians occupied it until it revoltedagain (41 I Ilc),

The \Vest Gale was stratt'gically sited at the pointwhere the artery from Chalkis crossed a winter torrent,originally by llleans of a ford. A gateway already existedin late archaic times, along with the first (wooden) hridge.The extant remains, however, arc tho!>C of a rehuild afterthe Persian sack to a new design, renovated at the end ofAthenian occupation (411 llC), in which the torrent bednow acted in effect as a moat. A stone bridge led the roadthrough a bottleneck forccourt, flanked by a pair ofbastion-like towers with mud-brick cores, to a two-leavedwooden gate. A well-preserved stretch of the circuit,punctuated by three rectangular towers, runs southwardfrom the \-\-'est Gale. The 1>oIygOrlai socle, dated to c4001lC, once supported a mud-brick superstructure. Thecircuit as a whole enclosed an area from the shore to thesummit of the acropolis to the north.

The =<t W1I1 01 Sounion, lookingnorth tow.mls the bay of Sounionfrom Tower 4.The high headland.dedicated to Poseidon. wa, fortifiedin 4J3/412 Be. and thereafterbecame an important g;llTison forthe Athenians. (Authors collection)

Phyle (Attica)We first heat of Phyle in the winter of 404/403 Be when Athens was under theheel of the Thirty Tyrants. One of their opponents, Thrasyboulos, ocCUpiedPhyle, a naturally defensible site according to Xenophon (chorion, Helleni"a2.4.2), with his band of 70 democrats. As Phyle lVas a strategic site on MountParnes, a border fort was planted there sometime in the early -Ith century Be.This was garrisoned by ephebes during their second yt'ar of paramilitary service.

Tht' fort was constructed on a triangular rocky crag (649rn) that falls sheeron all sides, especially precipitous on the wcst and north. The site overlooks themost direct north-south route from Athens, SOffie 20km to the south, toBoiotia. From it the view commands nearly the whole of the Attic plain.

The plan is a loose pentagon, though lhe fortifications themselves onlyencircle the eastern half of the crag. Surviving to their paved parotlv;, theashlar-masonry walls are broken at intervals by four towers, one of tht'ffiCircular, and two gateways_ Within the defences were the barracks in which theephebes ate and slepl.

Sounion (Allica)The 'sacred cape of Sounion' is first mentioned in Homer (Odyssey 3.278-83) asthe place where Phrontis, Menelaos' helmsman, is buried. Lying at thesouthernmost tip of Attica, the cajX' is a precipitous rocky headlandoverlooking the SaTanic Gulf. On its highest point (60m) stands the temple ofPoseidon «(.440-430 1lC) - this was the last landfall before sailors faced theAegean - rememhered as one of the most romantic ruins in Greece, painted byTurner and celebrated by Byron (0011 IIWII canto III stanza 116).

With the Spartans at Dekeleia, the overland route through Oropos to Euboiawas cut. Since the beginning of the Peloponnesian War most of the Athenianlivestock had been pastured on EUbaia, from which they received essentialsupplies. Thus, in the winter of 413/412 Be, the Athenians fortified Sounion toprotect the sea route to E\Jboia and the Black Sea, source of so much importedgrain (Thucydides 8.4, ct. Xcnophon Hellellika 5.1.23).

Forming a semicircle from the bay of Sounion on the north-west to the cliffedge on the south, the walls, complete with rectangular towers, enclosed thewhole acropolis. Laler, when Athens and other Greek states attempted to shakeoff Macedonian domination (Chremonidean \'Var, 268{267-263{262 Be), theAthenians expanded and strengthened the fortifications. The new sections ofthe walls and a huge artillery bastion built to carry catapults show thecharacteristic signs of hasty construction: many of the marble blocks camefrom plundered grave monuments.

The artillery bul.ion. which w:uluer inserted into me east....-allof Sounion. Built of IoaJ Agrilenmarble. many of the SlnJetUTeblocks come from plunde~ed gr;IVemonumenu. (Autho~'s collectiOfl)

The polis. quint~enti1lty a 'guild of~rriors·.deployed it$ cita..... boIty,n i phalanx.This nun formationwas an effectIve way of e"pressingmilitary power.The phalanx is seenhere on the Nereid monument, anearly 'lI:h-<:enwry tomb fromXanthos. Lyoa. (Authors collecooo)

Nature of conflictand societyPlato judges that one facet of virtue is to Ix' found in the traditional COlliest oftloplitcs facing each other in open battle. Tile use of walls as a protection istherefore 'unnatural' and can only lead to the deterioration of the moralcharacter of the citin'n of his state (Lmvs 778d4-79a7). Plalo was particularlyaverse to city.based defencc. He reviles ThemlstolJes, Kimon and Periklcs (orhaVing 'g1uttt"d Athens with harbours and dockyards and walls and tribute andrubbish of that sort' (Gorsilfs 519a). This conservative vicw that cHy walls do notmake a slate is to be found in other 4th-cen!ury writers as well, for instanceXenophon (OikOl1[!miko,~5.4-5, 6.6-7, 10) andlsokrates (7. U, cf. 8.77, H4). EvenThucydides, despite his enthusiastic support for J'erikles' city-based system ofdefence (\.1-13.5, d. [Xenophonl AliI/maio" politria 2.14-16), has Nikias say,'men make the polis and nOI walls' (7.77. cf. Alkaios (Page frs. 28, 29\).

Apart from Athens, which could field some 13,000 citizen-hoplites - besides16,000 above and below military age who garrisoned Ihe border forts amImanned the city walls - at the outbreak of the Peloponncsian War (Thucydides2.13.6-7, 31.2), the greater majority of po/cis had citizen populations of less than5,000. In a far-reaching study Rusc.hl'nbusch (1984: 55-57) !laSCQUllted some 750poleis in Ihe core area of the Greek world alone. AdditionaUy, he (1985: 253-6J)calculates that a 'typical polis' had a territory of only 25 to lOOkm? (Athens wasc.2,-IOOkm?) and an adult male dtizen membership of no more than I:U to 800.

Take for instance Corinth, which appears to be typical of a polis where IXlliticalpower remained traditionally in the hand.'i of the elite few (uligoi, j1l'Ilce'oligarchy') and, as such, shows a remarkably stable history. At "Iataia (479 llC),which was considered by the tireeb an all-out effort against the invading l'crsians.the polis fielded around 5,000 hoplites (Hcrodotos 9.28.3). l:or the baltle fought inthe vidnity of the ti\'Cr Nemea (394 Be), a location within C.orinthian territory, thepulis only mustered 3,000 hoplitcs (Xenophon J-Icllmikil4.2.17). In comparison,for l'lataia Aigina had sent some 500 hoplites (Herodotos 9.28.6), while ilt theNcmea, lighting for the Spartans against the Corinthiat15 and their alli~, thecombined strength of the hoplite colltingenl~from the Argolid polei:> of Epidauros,Troezen, Hermione and Halicis was 3.000 (Xenophon Hellmi/w 4.2.16).

Like that of his former mentor, AristOtle's ideal state was still essentiallya hoplite oligarchy (politic.~ 1279b4, 1294a-b, 1295a-297b), but he knewPlato's authoritarian dream of an un-walled city was totally obsoletebecause of the recent improvements in the efficiency of artillery and siegemachines (Polilics 1331a9-1O). Despite hl.'i common-sense vicw, however,he retained vestiges himself of the traditional hoplite ideology (PoliticsI330b9):

Doubtless there is something dishonourable in seeking safety behindstrong walls, at any rate against an enemy equal in number or only \'cryslightly superior.

And so the defenders came oul from their City walls not because theyhad to, but because they accepted a code of military behaviour that madethe risk of death in a short battle in an open field seem preferable to theprotracted and indecisive struggle between inefficient attacker andunwilling defender. Since they 'played by the rules' and seldom lockedthemselves in, Greeks had little need of the tactics or the technologysuited to siegecraft.

Agrarian city-stateThe armies of Greek poIeis were based on a levy of those citizensprosperous enough to eqUip themselves as hoplitt'S, heavily armouredwarriors who fought shoulder 10 shoulder in a large formation known asa phalanx (pl/Qltmges, 'stacks'). Excepi for Sparta, whose warriors wereacknowledged as the 'craftsmen of war' (Xenophon Lakedaimolliall politeia13.5) because they devoted their entire lives to military training.. and afew state-sponsored units such as the Sacred Band (llier-os focllos) ofThebes, these citizen levies were untrained soldier-farmers who saw it astheir moral, social and political duty to fight on behalf of their polis.

1-loplitt'S were the citizens in battle; citizens were the hoplites inassembly. They went into battle not for fear of punishment or in hope ofplunder and booty. They fought with neighbours, brothen, fathers, sons,uncles and cousins. This meant that they did their utmost to demonstratecourage, side·by·side with their comrades, and that they had a vestedinterest in the outcome. This was the unseen glue that bound the phalanx,and the polis, together. Only those who clashed with ashen spear andbronze shield, defying death and disdaining retceat, wece deemed worthy.

Hoplite warfareAt first sight it may seem surprising that when Greek warfare emerges intothe light of history, it not only soon becomes dominated by dose-packed,heavily armoured amateurs, but also continues to be so for some threecenturies (c.675-350 IIC). It lasted so long because as time passed thesystem was maintained for the sake of tcadition, shared values and socialprejudice. Since hoplites were expected to provide their own equipment,the majority of the population in any given poliS was necessarily excluded.But the full rights of cltizenship were only accorded to those who couldafford to take their place in the phalanx, so that the hoplites effectivelywere the 'nation in arms', and it would have been unthinkable to arm thelwi pul/oi. It was only in Athens, where the navy became important, thatthe poorest citizens, the tllett's who rowed the triremes, came to have asignificant military role - hence Athenian democracy (demokmfia: 'thepeople' (dimos) 'rule' [kraUm, or what Aristotle aptly called 'triremedemocracy' (Politics 1291b21, d. 1304a8, 1321a2, (Xenophon) AlIlI?rIoiol/poJitl'ia 1.2). Finally, as the events of the "<;0 Persian invasions of Greece(490 Be, 480-479 1lC) were to show, hoplites were extremely formidable.

•

Power politics and professionalwarriors

For contemporaries. till' success ofPhilip II of Macedoo W3.$ due to mepersonalgreuness of Philip him"",",_Theopompos. who said thn ·Europehad never produced a man like Philipson ofAmymu· (FGrHist 115 F27),f,ttlngly gave the title PhiJippko to hishistDry of me period. therebyacknowledging me imporunce of theking·s personality.Theopomposrecognited mu Philip did what he did.MId what he prede<essors Iud beenun:.lble to do, because Philip wu Philip.Militarily the ,mporance of thisStatement all tw-d1y be l!X3ggl'f:ited,becal,lse Philip's inl"lOViltions in Stntegyand taCtics radically changed the formsof Greek warfare. Until his acce:;sion(3601359 lIC). powerfulrM!1ghbours andInternal conflicts had kept M.1cedonfrom achieYIng its full potential. Duringhis first me yeus Philip suppressed theIatt<~r and developed the most effic;;ientfighti~ force ,n the Greek wond to

coerc:e the fonTlel".lnl"lOViloon. trainingand first-class leadership were the key.

Philip ruled u MI 3UtOO<It and thoughDemosthenes labelled him ;as 'munscrupulous and clever opporo.anlSC'(H), theAtheni3n orator abo identifiedthe bedrock upon which the Icing builthis powet". namely ·his comblOf!d positionIn command of the army. state andexchequer' (4.5). Dernost.henes wu to

return to th,s thl!me of absolutism afterChaironeia (338 llC). Philip owing hisdecisive victory there to his ·absolutepower OV1!r all his following, which inwart.l~ is me greuest asset of all'(18.235). It could be said that the lOng

was the SUite or. to borrow me wordsattributed to Louis XIV,'L'l!tat, ,'est mot.For the lOng united in his own person anear-monopoly of executive powers andprivileges in the religious, judicial.diplomatic. political and military spheres.

Yel to Philip the Slue was a mereancillary to the army, and merefo~

was organized on the sole principle ofproviding manpower, labour and capitalto ensure mat the formidableMacedonian phalanx wol,lld be fuelledfor further aggrandisement. Indeed,Philip·s territorial ambitions hadnothing to do wim a few acres oot5idl'the polis, but rather encompassed ..broader vislOl'l of mines, harbours andtribute-paying communities.. For Philip.the St{Olteg)' of war was designedpredominantly u a deYice of ambitiousstate policy.

47

.8

PanoplyThe hopJite panoply (pillloplia) consisted of a round, soup bowl-shaped shield(ospis, Thucydides 7.82.3, Xenophon Hellmik.a 2.4.12, 504.18, ct. IlOploll,Diodoros 15.44.3), approximately 90cm in diameter, a bronze helmet, a bronzeor linen corselet and bronze greaves. The whole, when worn, weighedanywhere from 22.7 to 31.7kg.

Built on a wooden core, the shield '",as faced with a thin layer of stressedbronze and backed by leather. Because of its great weight, about 6.8 to 9.lkg,the shield was carried by an arrangement of two handles, the annband (poIf/l.lX)in the centre through which the foreann passed and the handgrip (anti/abe) atthe rim. Held across the chest, it covered the hoplite from chin to knee.However, being clamped to the left arm it only offered protection to hisleft-hand side.

Above the flat broad rim of the shield, a hoplite's head was fully protededby a bronze helmet, the Corinthian helmet being by far the most commonstyle. This was shaped from a Single sheet of bronze that covered the entire faceleaving only the eyes clear. Under the helmet many men either wore a clothheadband or an under-cap of felt, which not only restrained the hair but alsoprovided some support for this heavy piece of armour. The stress on protectionseriously impaired both hearing and vision, thus Ollt of battle it (Ollld bepushed to the back of the head, thereby leaving the face uncovered.

A corslet protected the torso. This was either of bronze or of linen(IilJotJUjfUX). The first, reaching a thickness of about 1.27cm, was a bell-shapedplate corslet composed of two sections fore-and-aft. The second was built up ofmultiple layers of linen glued together to fonn a stiff shirt, about half acentimetre thick. Below the waist it was cut into stripS (plfflISes, 'feathers') forcase of movement, with a second layer of pterllges being fixed behind the first,thereby covering the gaps between them. The great advantage of the fitlotl,iifUXwas its fleXibility. Finally, a pair of bronze greaves (/memides) protmed the lowerlegs. TheY' clipped neatly round the calves by their own elasticity. Thus thehoplite remained effectively armoured from head-ta-foot.

The weapon par excellence of the hoplite was the long-thrusting spear(dom), some 2.1 to 3m in length, made of ash and equipped with a bronze oriron spearhead and bronze butt-spike. The butt-spike, affectionately known asthe 'lizard-sticker' (sal/roter), allowed the spear to be planted upright in theground when a hoplite was ordered to ground arms (being bronze it did notrust), or to fight with if his spear snapped in the melec. The spear was usuallythrust over-arm, although il could be easily thrust under-arm if the hoplite wascharging into contad at a run. Also carried was a short iron sword (k.opis) witha heavy, leaf-shaped blade deSigned for slashing, but this was very much asecondary weapon.

HattieForget strategy and tactics, hoplite battle was, by its very nature, ritualistic - theidea was to defeat rather than to annihilate. The Greeks had developed whathas been called by Hanson the 'Western way of War' - a head-ta-head collisionof summertime soldier-farmers on an open plain in a brutal display of courageand physical prowess. Their battlefields were scenes of furious fighting andcarnage that usually consumed not more than an hour or two. Every man waspushed to the limits of his physical and psychological endurance - and then itwas over, not to be repeated for a year or more.

That hoplites fought on the flattest piece of terrain was a point made byMardonios in his speech to his master, Xerxes, the Great King of Persia(Herodotos 7.9~.1):

The Greeks are pugnacious enough, and start fightS on the spur of themoment without sense or judgement to justify them. Whcn they de<:larc

API2:TOT::::\H

war on each other, they go off together 10 the smoothest and flartest pieceof ground they c<m find, and have their battle on it.

Altll0Ugh Mardonios believed that the Grt'eks pursued th!:!r unique styll' ofwarfare out of ignorance and stupidity, what he ,'><Iys is inl'Onttovcrtible. Forany unexpected obstacle could bring the phalanx to a compldl' hall or breakils formation, and Aristotle (Politics 1303b16) reminds us that it would break upif it were forced to cross even the smallest watercourse. As a result generals(strategOl) selected level plains on which to fight their haul('S.

Once a stmtlgos had deployed his hoplitcs and battle had been jOined, therewas little or no room for command or manoeuvre, the individual stratrgostaking up his position in the front rank of the phalanx and fighting along:>idehis men for the duration. Consequently, many srratexoi perished in the fray. Itwas outward displays of grit (areri!, (/I/(Irda), not strategic or tactical skills, whichwere all-important for a strati'gus,

PhalanxIt was the hoplite shield that made the rigid phalanx formation viable. Half theshield protruded beyond the left-hand side of the hoplite. If the man on the leftmoved in close he was protected by the shield Q\'erlap. which thus guarded hisuncovered side. Hence, hopliles stood shoulder to shoulder with their shieldslocked. Once this formation was broken, however, the advantage of the shieldwas lost - as Plutarch says (.a.1omlio 220A2), the armour of a hoplite may be forthe individual's protection, but the hoplite's shield protected the wholephalanx. Thus the injunction of a Spartan mother to her son 'either with tllis oron this' (Plutarch Moralia 241F16), that is, he was to return home both alive andvictorious carrying the shield, or lying dead ul)Qn it after a fight to the finish.

As the phalanx itself was the tactic, two opposing phalanxes would headstraight for each other, break into a run for the last few metres, collide with acrash, and then stab and shove till one side broke. Thucydides famously says

AIlO'o'E LIFT A Utopian philosopher.Plato had little sympathy withAthenian democracy. In his eyes, itwas almost better w lose heroicallyon the hoplite batdefield than towin at sea or lrom behind dty wallswith the l"Ielp of the ho; /,olloi.(Author's collection)

AllCN'E RIGHT Ariscode believed tNtevery livWl& chill! las built ~to it atconception iu predestined final end.its perlea form.The ·end· of allhuman sotiallile and organizationwas lor the teleological philosopherthe polis. (Author'$ collection)

49

50

An un-costly affair

S,orming parties of 'barbarian'men:enaries were the exceptionthat proves the rule, namelyGreek StltC!s would shy awwyfrom heavy losses among theircitizen-hoplites in what was thehazardous adventure of ahead-on assault upon a fonifiedposition.In 41 3 Be 1,300 Th"'dan peJUSlS.known fo<- their fighting skills andthe use of the short sword,al'TiYed in Athens toO late to wiwith the relief fo<'ce headed forSyracuse (ThlK)'d,des 7.27.1). Asthe Athenians had no wish [0

incur unnecessary expenditure,they~ sent back under thecommand of Diitrephes and 'as

!hey were [0 sail throur theEupiros. he was instl'\.lCted [0 usethem in damg whatever damagehe could [0 the enemy on theirYOyag'l! along the coasd,ne'(Thucydides 7.29.1). First raidingT~ these troops were thenunleashed :apinst MybJessos.whidl was stOflTll!d one morningat daybreak.

Arguably these barbarianswere expendable. but this smallBolotlan toWn was clearly so farinland that the inhabitants neverthought they would be attackedfrom the sea.. Further, 'thefortifications were weak andhad fallen down in places (It hadbeen built in a hurry) and thegateS were open be<:ause of thepopulace's false sense ofsecurity' (Thucydides 7.29.3).What followed was one ofthe worst atrotlties of thePeloponoesian War.TheThracians 'butchered theinhabitants sparing neitherthe young nor the old, butmethodically killing everyonethey met, women and childrenalike, and even livesto<k andevery living thing they saw'(Thucydides 7.29.4). Surprisewas total and the lack ofpreparation by the defendersmade it an easy target, asThucydides. with conlrolledindignation. pamfully records.

(5.71.1) that an advancing phalanx tl·ndt'<.l to (wb to the right. The extremeright-hand man drifted in fear of ~ing caught on his unshielded side, and therest of the phalanx would naturally follow suit. each hoplite edging into theshadow of the shield of the comrade on his right. Thus each right wing mightoverlap and beat the opposing left.

A phalanx was a deep formation, normally composed of hoplitcs arrayedeight to 12 shields deep. In thiS dense mass only the front two ranks could usctheir spears in the mHee, those in the third rank and beyond adding weight tothe attack by pushing to their front. This was probably achieved by pressing theshield squarely into the hollow of the man in front's back, seating Ihe leftshoulder beneath the upper rim, and, digging the sales and toes into theground for purchase, heaving. Both Thucydides (4.43.3, 96.2, ct. 6.70.2) andXenophon (Hellmika 4.3.19, 6.4.14, cf. .'''ewort/l,i/i" 3.1.18) commonly refer tothe push and shove (otlli.smos) of a hoplite mch~e. Once experienced such athing was never easily forgotten and even Aristophanes' chorus of veteranhoplites is made to say (Wasps 1081-85);

After running out with the spear and shield, we fought them ... each manstood up against each man .. we pushed them with the gods until evening

The pushing with the shields explains the famous cry of Epameinondas, whohad introduced a SO-decp phalanx, 'for one pace more' at I.£uktra (Polyainos2.3.2, d. 3.9.27, 4.3.8).

The melee il'ielf was a t()C.ta..toc affair, the front two ranks of opposingphalanxes attempting to stab their spears illlo the exposed parts - throat, groin orthighs - of the enemy. Meantime, the ranks behind would thrust their shieldsflush against the backs of the men in file before them and shove with all theirstrength_ Once a hoplite was down, injured or not, he was unlikely ever to get upagain. This short but vicious 'serum' was resolVl'd once one side had practicallycollapsed. The phalanx became a mass, then a mob. There was no pursuit by thevictors, and thu<;(' of the vanqUished who were able fled the battlefield.

SiegecraftFor most of the classical period fortification walls do not have a place in thatcentral moment of Greek warfare, the dash of opposing phalanxes. The ethic ofhoplite warfare and the pr<ll'tical Tl"Stri<.1ions im!x>scd by the heavy panoply meantthe hoplite was ill equipped to deal with the difficulti<."S of cracking fortifiedpositions. The equation between hoplite status ,Illd citizenship also made the rateof casualties a significant political consideration and the relatively small citizenpopulations of many of the 1)()lri,~ magnified tllis factor. Since the hazardousadventure of a direct assaulL gl'nNally imposed the greatest number of losses, therewas il tendency to shun such operations unless unavoidable, Cities stated 10 havelx"Cn taken by storm (kata krdtus) were ImignJf!canl or un-walled (Thucydides2.30.1 !Astakosj, 3.97.2 [Aigitionl, 5.6.1 IGalepsosL fl.62.2ILampsakosj, lJiodoros14.36.2-3 [Magnesia], Xenophon F-kl/mika 7,1.281K<tryail, 4.20 jKromnosl).

What the citizens of a polis !lad to f('ar most from their fellow Greeks wasreduction by starvation or their betrayal to the enemy from within. AlthoughI'erikles is credited with the use of Siege devices against Samos (Diodoros12.28.3), the city held out for eight months and then capitulateo (Thul"ydides1.117.3), which suggests that it was reduced by blockade, by starvation or thefear of starvation, rather than by dJrC<'1 assault, Plataia, after ingenious attackswhich seem to have been the acme of contemporary Greek siegecraft was, inthe end, left to fall to the long-drawn pressure of starvation after two years ofclose-drawn circumvallation (Thu<.)'dides 2.75-78, 3.52.1-2). Actually thissiege highlights the real weakness of Greek siegecraft, and is a clear indicationof the difficulties that still stood in the way of capturing a fortified positionduring the Peloponnesian War even with the latest te<:hniques available.

'New Model' phalanx

M...cedon Wil-$ ... poor country On the northern rim of theAege.m. and the Macedonian phalanx wu composed of peasantlevies - all healthy male subjeccs of the king were liable forse""';ce - wno could iY afford the panoply 01 a Grffl< hopIite.Consequently, mey were issued. at sate expe:n$e, with mesamsa and Iigtot body armour.As the new weapon requiredboth halKls for adequate control mel hand~ng. a buuon-s~shield. some 60cm in diameter; wu hung from the ned< bymeans of a ned<.nnp md m;moeuvred with the f~arm asrequired (Polyainos 'l.210.Asklepiodows Talet/ko S.I. Polybios18.29.2).

The mobiliution of the peasantry as a political tool, as wellas a military force, may predate Philip if Anaximenes is heeded.He says it was Philip's eldest bruther,Alexander II. who createdand organ,zed Macedon's first heavily ...rmed infantry....ndawarded them the honorific title of Foot-Companions(pezhetoiroi) to enhance their prestige (Anaximenes FGrHist72 ~" " Harding SOB, d. Demosthenes 2.17 with s,holion '"Harding SO...). But Alexander II only reigned for a year(370/369-369/368 Be) - a rival assassinated him. It is highlyprobable that the introduction of the 10 to 12-cubit (4.S-SAm)forino as the principal offensive infantry weapon was Philip'sinnovation. particularly if in translation Anvdmenes' text hadbeen corrupted ...nd thus should read 'Philip father of Alexander'and not ·Alexander'. That is certainly implied by Diodoros whentle says Philip was ·the first to org;m~e the Macedonian phalanx'(16.3.2.d.Mars~FGrHist 135 f 17).

Philip's first battle was against the Illyrians near lake Lychnitis(3S913S8 ee). Diodoros. drawing upon me lnId-4th-century Be...ud'lor Theopompos, sta.tes thn Philip ted the right wing,

'which consined of the flower of the Macedonians" (16.4.S, d.Theopompos FGrHiSl liS F 318). It is assumed Diodoros isreferring here to the I'ezhetoira;. Philip havIng ·ordered hiscavalry (heta;ro;) to ride past the barbarians and ...tUck themon the flank. while tle hirTl.Self falting on the enemy in a fronQlassault (t6.'l5). So. by leading them in person. Phitip P"! thenewty established Macedonian phalanx a psychologial boost.

The sorissa was lTQ(ie 01 a long shaft 01 comeI wood (Comusmos. comelian cherry), the .tlafr. b8>g of F,WOof>ieCe constn,,:tionfltIed together by a bronze coupling sl_. Eq...ipped with an ironleaf-shaped bbde and bronze bua-spike - both about SOan inlength - mel weighing V"OUnd 6I<g. the sor;sso was held WIth atwo-handed grip 1.8m from me butt.This meaJ'lt the weaponexti'Ilded some 3.6m in front of the Macedonian phalangite. thusgiving hIm an ...dvalll:age in reach of over 2.4m more than theG~k hopIite.ln addition. the first fIVe. not two ranks were nowth",sting,giving 40 per cent more ~pearheads in the killing zone.Such a hedgehog.like front provided an unu~ual degree ofoffensive might. as well as defensi"" protection for the lightlyarmoured initial t4nks. Under Philip the usual depth may havebeen 10 ranks, as a file W35 called a dekas. But to be tacticallysuccessful, the Macedonian phalanx needed a rank and file thatwas tough. disciplined and well trained.These requirementscertainly tie in with Philip's regime to toughen up his troops byforced marches under arms and loaded down with rations andequipment (Diodoros 16.3.1, Polyainos .01.2.1. 2. 10, IS, Fronti",,-,5tratoeems 'l.1.6).The use of tightly packed ipearmen in thephalanx may have been a Greek development. but it reachedits peak of efficiency and prowess in the Macedonian ...rmiescommanded by Philip and his son A1eunder.

The Athenians had some reputation for sicgccraft {Thucydides 1.l0Z.2, cf.Herodotos 9.70.2-:i, 102.1), but Potidaia held out against them for nearly threeyears and then surrendered only on terms, and that too although it was importantfor Athenian prestige to bring the SiC?ge to an end as qUickly and deciSively aspOSSible (Thucydidcs 2.70.1-3, Diodoros 12.46.4-6). When Myulene revoltedagainst Athens the city could not be taken until the bc~,'inning of starvation ledto its surrender. In fact capitulation only came about when the mass of thecili7.cns were armed and were able to get their way against the mort' determinedaristocrats who had been responsible for hringing about the rl'bcllion in the firstplace CI11Ucydides 3.27-28). Likewise, some form of ({/liP de IIwi", helped by localtreachery, captured the Long Walls at Megara (Thucydides 4.66-68).

For the Athenians the prolonged encirclement and starvalion of tIle trappedpopulace lllay have been the keys to victory, but mounting a formal siege was aruinously expensive undertaking. The siege of Samos had cost over 1,400 talents(1(; i3 363.19 = Fornara 113, d. Plutarch I'erik/es 28.1), while thai of l'otidaia wasan even greater financial drain, cmling no less than 2,000 talents or two-flflhs ofthe reserves of Athens (Thucydides 2.70,2, d. Diodorm 12.46.4). But it was theSiege of Mytilene that strained Athenian fiscal resources almost to breaking point.The Athenians, needing mont')' for the siege, decided on a dcsjX'rate solution and'raised among themselves fOT the first time a property tax of 200 talents'(fhucydidcs 3.19.1, d. 1.141.5).

During the latter half of the 5th century Be, the Greeks certainly usedsiege-mounds and deployed 'machines' (mlc1lamll). This unqualifIed term isentirely indefinite, but almmt certainly included the scaling·ladder, batteringram, tortoise and shed, although not the catapult. The absence of artillery fromthe detailed military narrative of Thucydidcs is onc of the strongest arguments forthinking that it had not been invented before the turn ofthe -hh century Be. 51

Infem;tl fire

Thucydides (-4.100) describeshow the Bo,Qtian$ u~ "fWne..-throwing contraptionto incinerate the woodenfortifications. ""d IMny 01 itsdefenders.. hutily erected bythe Atheni",,~ at the temple ofApollo in Delion (-42-4 Ie). TheBoiotian~ split" wooden be;unin two and hollowed it out.Thetwo halves were then rejoinedand sheathed in iron.A largeiron cauldron W<lS suspendedfrom the business end by means()f a chain, and an iron wbe wasInsened through the length ofthe device. thIS wbe curveddown inco me Ciluldron, whichwu filled with lichted coab;,

wlphur and pitch.The devicewu strapped to Cilrts andwheeled right up to thestoek3de while covering fire W3$

given to its oper1ltof$.At tNtpoint me Boioti"ns "wchedI"rge bellows to their end of thedevice and pumped gre"t bl:utsof Air through the tube to directthe chemical fire in the cauldronat the stockade.

The doubl...-gripped,co~ hopliteshield, seen heft! on the Nereidmonument. W<lS singulu. Greekphalanxes were Cillibr1lt.ed by thedepth of their cumulAtive shields­'eight shields deep','twelve shieldsdeep' - not by counting spears.

52 (Auth()r's collection}

Engines of war

"""" «OK Pluarch hril</e< 27 -Oiodo<"o$ 12.28.3 Battering rwns (krioUs). tortOIses (dteIOnerl;)

om.. -431 !IC ~LI8.1 ~, possibly IXlI1ering rams....... -430 Be Th~258.1 --Oiodoros 12.46.2 MkhonCli. possibly banenng rams. tortOises

Pl"aQ 4301-429 !IC ThocydidM 2.76.4 Banenng rams (medl<Jn<lI)

MIllO<'- 427 IIC Thucydldes ].S1.3 Mechonoi, po«ibly sClling-l~dders

Pylas 42Soc Thucydldel 4.13.1 Mec~anai. possibly sc"ling-l~dders

Peir~illUI 403 Be Xenophon Hdkniko Mec~QnQpoios.po»ibly battering ram'2.4.27

The non-torsion catapult was first deployed, in the form of a simple'belly-shooter' (gastmplletes), by DionysiOS 1 of Syraruse during his siege ofMotya, the Carthaginian island-fortress at the west end of Sicily, in 398/397 Be

(Diodoros 14.50.4, d. 41.4). In essence an o\,'er-large crossbow, it acquired thisseemingly homely and unthreat£'ning name because a concavity at the rear ofthe wocxten stock was placed against the stomach and the weight of the lxx1ywas used to force back the bowstring to its maximum extension (HeronBdopoiika 81). Th£' revolutionary development of this mechanical propulsivedevice, which essentially accumulated and stored human strength, wouldeventually threaten fortifications by the sheer amount of force it could produce.Catapults would come to epitomize the acrne of ancient military technology.

But in the first half of the 4th century Be the full effect of siege-machineswas yet to be realized. In his treatise Poiiorkitika (or How to Survive WIder Sit'se),the Arcadian soldier-of-fortune Aineias Taktikos (fI- 350 EIC) wrItes from thepoint of view of personal experience. Despite the beginnings of themechani7.ation of siegecraft - and here the techniques of defence he discussesare almost wholly non-mechanical, mentioning artillery only once (32.8) - themajor preoccupation of Aineias remains the threat of betrayal (1.3-7, 11.1-2).

The sites at war

Siege of Plataia (429-427 Be)The Spartans. Jed by Archidamos II, and their Peloponnesian and Boiotian allieslaid siege to Athens' oldest ally Plataia, a small Baiotian polis at the nonh footof Mount Kithairon (summer 429 IIC). Assurances from the Athenians that theywould not abandon the Plalaians 'but would aid them \...ith all their power'(Thucydidcs 2.73.3) convinced those still inside the dty walls to hold out.

Initially, the besiegers erected a surrounding palisade to keep any defendersfrom f'SCaping. Xext they began building a siege-mound. using local timber toform a lartiCt'work, which was then packed with earth and stone. As thesiege-mound neared the defences, th(' besieged responded by erecting awooden scaffold, and inside this men raised the wall fadng the growing rampby using bricks "rocured from n('arby houses. The tim~rs "'ere covered inrawhid(', 'so that the workmen and wOOdwork might be saf(' and shielded fromincendiary arrows' (Thucydides 2.75.5).

Once th(' si('ge.mound reached the wall, a feat taking 70 days and nights,the Plataians tunn('llro through and auemptro to undermine it. Th(' !>('siegerscountered by using r('('(J wattles packed with clay to provide a tough facing tothe ramp. They then deployed battering rams against the raised wall but thePlataians responded by lowering nooses and hoisting up the rams. They alsoused cranes to drop heavy ~ams on the rams so as to snap their heads off.Despite these countermeasures, however, Sft1:ions of the raisro wall collapsedunder the battering. Wisely the defenders had earlier constructro a Se<"Ondsemicircular wall within the city (a lunette), so that when the attackers brokein they found themselves in a walled enclosure.

In reply the ~siegers filled the enclosure with bundles of wood and firedthem using Ii~ra[ quantities of pine resin and in a bold innovation, SUlphur.The combination of sulphur am.I pitch 'produced such a conflagration as hadnever been seen ~fore, greater than any fife produced by human agency'(Thucydides 2.77.4). This chemically enhanced fire almost destroyed theI'lataians for, along with the bright blue sulphur flames and the acrid stench,the fumes would have been deadly since the combustion of sulphur neatessulphur dioxide. A chance rainstorm, however, doused this toxic contlagration.After this tinal failure, Archidamos sent many of his troops home to attend theharvest, wllile having the remainder huild a double wall of circumvallationwith a view to starving the Plataians inlo submission (autumn 429 lie). Some2,000 Spartan and lIoiotlan troops remained on guard duty through the winter.

Most of the Plataians had escaped before the siege began and only a garrisonof 480 men, 80 of them Athenian, and 110 women 'to make bread' (Thucydides2.78.3) remained in tbe beleaguered city. The small garrison and wise stockpilingof provisions meant that the defenders we[e in no immediate danger ofstarvation. In fact they held out for two years. Half the garrison managed toescape in the last months of the Siege by negotiating the circumvallation onestormy, moonless night in midwint('r, and then eluding a large pursuing force,but the remaind('T held out in the pathetic belief that the Athenians wouldrelieve them. In the end, fadng starvation, they surrendered (summer 427 IIC).Under pressure from The!>('s, Plataia's hereditary enemy, and after some speciouslegal proc('('(Jings, th(' Spartans e.xecuted all 225 male survivors, which includedsome 25 Athenians, and sold the women into slavery. They then turned Plataiaover to the Thebans, who levelled the dty entirely (Thucydides 3.20-24, 52-68). 53

0'

r~

The Peloponneslansiege-mound at Plataia(summer 429 Be)For 70 days and nightscontinuously thePeloponnesians kept onraising the siege-mound.First, containing walls oftimber laid like latticeworkwere constructed to conulnthe mound. Next, the spacesbetween the timber wallswere filled with earth,rubble and wood. Nat~ndl~the mound builders re~~~e1:l,some form of protect'b,\,~~r(~that would permit thefn \' .i ['1',,~,"'P'~1~ .~\ ' LlttOl~l.:W""TjaJP'to work unhindered. T q-, ,.i.~' ,. ,solution was a shed. a'!'o\Jf -,

light timber struetur{l 't~~ ,'. .Jit'open-ended with A ..., I'r'f'.. '; :wickerwork sldes,~ _,0.,',: l'i ~ ~ \

a boarded roofa· , " 1 "")rr.~~~~a fireproof covering 0 •~~ ,,. ,$. ,

were arranged end-to-.en~'.- ,1./1

to form a corridor.Th~ I ..~

Plataians countered byheightening the fortifications .'with a wooden frameworkwithin which they erecteda wall using bricks fromthe nearest houses. Thestructure was covered withhides to protect theworkmen and to preventincendiary devices reachingthe woodwork.

,

"

~

."

... ,.'i·.. r

I

,"

.' .~/c,.;'i>~~iF...J- f

~J;$;/!;:'!~' ,-

;I,,;Wr' ..,

./5'~::,c:"";.;:,:~;i~

":

:;" Labdalum

',~"

"

Ortygia

Plemmyrium

Great Harbour

"~:

~.,..,.,'1-~~r~l'

".'

~"

::'.'~'.~

.. r~..·-",;.:,,"~

I· :,:~';;'~~:~

··,:ti:

,

!,('

I'~'~';;''if

The Athenian siege of Syracuse (summer 414 Be)The Athenians took up a position on the dominating heights, called Epipolai.north of Syracuse. There they built twO forts, the tabdalum and 'the Circle'. Fromthe latter they began to construct a double line of ditches and palisades from sea ;"/to sea in order to blockade the city.The Syracus~ns tried to prevent them with,.---­counter-walls, each a combination of ditch and palisade. at X-X,Y- Y, and fFtYsucceeded with Z-Z after capturing the fort at Labdalum.The-·latter~anwest from the city and cut across Epipolai, [hen~oy precluding the enian :'~"'...attempt to reach the sea atTrogilo~ and i'solate !he city:With the 10 of ".~

Labdalum, the Athenians fortified a,~"i piece of terr~i".;:;:f!.emmyr·. .~.'i1~:Jt;th~. <;'... <~./-'tl",mouth of the Great Harbour in..ord t9 ensure a.s:c!,!ss' cont or suriplies...' • .,:. "":'

> •••• :1:., .' ;.'¥.~, " .' ".'1:'/>. 3'1;" I,",:' ,!~ .:~f ~. • ~!,.. ~~ ',d

"~c. '.3 . . ,,~:~~·:'1~":;":""'<"1»':'-" ,j;;t!.';r':','-, '--;'<.~'•• : . ,.t'::>, .. ;:,.::~~~~,~" .1~:!.,- <:/""~,,-~ 'l\"'~ "/§\ Y '..., .~!'!~.r.Jif'~'.''''i..:ni~ ',. *;;:, ':~.'~ ,:~~( "'"': :OJ:.',:'" '-':'~;Z}f:~;~:;f!:;;/'

.'''I'. . \'~~'!!$\:"~,I. '<-< _, ,~,\........J.;;;. '- ,.. ~~,,~¥.·rt\i;"it1-: J,;P.;"'!;t.:r~' ,,), ,~{.:~.':'~>S;:,::·,';;;;,;.;-.~.U;<',',> ...~,~ ,~'.. -, £ ::::1;;,~, :."" ;.~~- 'Jrii;~i,.' 11 ':-.

- ','... :\: ,,»",.,,--<V:'~t·· ~>f!J~"-?~:~~" .;,,:-

""'.l',::~.>'" "'J.-:-;...... ~•__.... \ .... ~. ·:r',,;'•. ~": /f''''

. ,.~ .-'_},'-', ",.:':>.; "~ J' ~<i0¥-'" ':"'i"a;{""I'!:f' ':;"~'/~""."'~.., '\"Y, ,', ,';;jj

'I·' '." • $~ j,P.j.•..·'IiP""-- . ""~" ,.;.'.' il-':r· .._.,~,';,;" ...::':tr~'" .~:<,~~~;< '

~

~

56

Siege of Syracuse (415-413 Be)In 415 Be, with the I'clopollnC'sian War in a state of uneasy truce, Athens,ostensibly to preserve the independence of her allies Egesta and Leontini,launched an eXJX'dition under Nikias, Lamachos and Alkibiades to captureSyracuse. From the outset the Athenians suffered from command problems.Alkihiadcs, summoned home to answer a charge of sacrilege, deserted to Sparta,and the able Lamachos was killed during the early stages of the siege. This leftNikias, whom Thucydides (7.42.3, d. 2.65.11) represents as timid, incompetentand notoriously superstitious, in command. The armada included 134 fightingtriremes, 60 of them !\thcnian, and an unknown number of troopshipscarrying 5,100 hoplites, 1,500 of them Athenian, with light-armed troops,including archers from Crete and slingers from Rhodes, in proportion. Athensalso supplied 700 tllites, who normally Shipped as citizen-oarsmen, eqUipped ashoplites so as to serve as marines (epibatt/l) on the triremes (Thucydides 6.43,d. 8.2, fG iJ 93_6 = Fomanl 146).

The Athenians severed Syracu~'s land communications with two forts. One....'as planted at Sycc north-west of the city and not far from the southern edgeof the rod,,. heights, called Epipolai, overlooking the city. The other fort wasplaced at Labdalum on Epipolai's northern escarpment line. Thucydides callsthe fort at Syce 'the Circle' (6.98.2) and this was to be the centre of operationsfor the Athenians while they conducted the siege. At their other fort, that atLabdalum, the Athenians stored their supplies, equipment and war-chest. Theyalso began to construct a double wall of circumvallation from 'the Circle',northwards in the direction of Trogilos and southwards towards the GreatHarbour. The Athenians, however, left their northern walls, those runningacross Epipolai to the sea at Trogilos, incomplete, which was to provedisastrous. Meanwhile the fleet prepared 10 blockade Syracuse by sea. After twoaTtempts to build counter-walls (ll}'poteicllisma) from their defences weredefeated, the Syracusans wen.' then dismayed to set' the Athenian fleet sailinginto their Great Harbour.

The Syracusans had sent urgent messages to the Peloponnese asking forassistance and Corinth, as the metropolis of Syracuse, had prt'ssed Sparta to act.Corinth and Sparta despatched only a few triremes and a handful of troops, butthe Spartans supplied a determined and resourceful stm/egos, Gylippos(Thucydides 6.93.2). He slipped p<lst Nikias and entered the city. There he putfrt'sh heart into the beleaguered Syracusans, who captured the fort at Labdalumand the unfinished northern fortific,1tiOns on EpipoJai and started tht'construction of four fortified camps and a third counter-wall, which was to runnorth of 'the Circle' parallel to Epipotai's northern escarpment line. TheSyracusans' confidence increased dramatically, so much so that they began totrain their naval crews with the intention of challenging the Athenian neet.

Nikias now saw the danger of the besiegers being besieged and wrote toAthens to ask permission to retire or, failing that, for more troops to be sent(summer 414 Be). The assembly vott'd for a second expedition. Befort' it arrived,howcwr, the Syracusans managed to seize the three forts - the supply depotbuilt to replace Labdalum - at Plemmyrion, a promontory forming thesouthern side of the narrow entrance to the Great Harbour. This victorydcmonstratt'd once and for all that the Athenians could be defeated with theright combination of land and naval forces. To overcome their vulnerability onthe sea, the Syracusans had cut down the bows of their triremes and reinforcedthem with stay-beams so that they could ram head-on instead of from the flankor stern as the skilled Athenians preferred: their sleek triremes were fast andmanoeuvrable, the epitome of effident muscle power.

This defeat forced the Athenians to crowd into an inadequate camp inunhealthy, marshy ground on the west side of lhe Great Harbour (spring 413oc). Rut the strategic cost of the capture of Plemmyrlon was even greater as theSyracusans now held both sides of the harbour. The Athenians could no longer

bring in supplies, and 'the loss of I'Jemmyrion brought bewilderment anddiscouragement to the army' rl'hucydides 7.24.3).

Just as things were looking bleak for Kikias and his men, however,Demosthenes, the leader of the second expedition, sailed into the GreatHarbour with 73 triremes carrying almost 5,0IX) hoplites, and swarms oflight~armed troops 'both from Greece and from outside' (Thucydides 7.42.1).\'\'ith his characteristic clarity and boldness Demosthenes recommended anight attack to destroy the Syracusans' counter-wall and seize Epipolai, forwithout the heights no assault on the City could prevail. But this ended inconfusion and failure, 'a great many of the .'\thenians and allies were killed,although still more arms were taken than could be accounted for by thenumber of the dead' (Thucydides 7.45).

Demosthenes realized evacuation was the only way to save the Athenianforce, but a lunar e<lipse caused the superstitious Kikias to delay the expedition'sdeparture for 'thrice nine' days. The S)'Jacusans discoveu'(J the Athenian plan toretire and thus became more determined than ever not to relax their pressureand to force the enemy to fight again in the confined space of the Great Harbour.Defeated at sea, the Athenians resolved to try to break through the improVisedboom of merchantmen thrown across the harbour mouth by the Syracusans, bottheir ships were driven into the centre of the harbour and attacked. After adaylong struggle - the Athenians had strengthened the bows of their triremes inthe Syracusan manner and boarded everyone likely to be of service as a marine~ the Athenians fell back on their camp.

Abandoning their sick and wounded, the Athenian ann)' of 40,000 mennow attempted to Withdraw overland to reach friendly Katana. :"likias led thevan while Demosthenes commanded the rearguard, but the "va columnsbecame separated under the constant harrying of the Syracusan horsemen andlight-armed troops. Dcmosthencs' force was trapped, 20,000 men were killedand some 6,000 surrendered. Meanwhile Nikias' starved and thirsty force hadmade its way to the Assinaros and, while slacking their thirst, was attacked bythe Syracusans, who slaughtered them as they drank from the river, 'all muddyas it was and stained with blood' (Thucydides 7.84.4). Nikias surrenderedhimself to stop the slaughter and the few survivors were taken prisoner.

Both stmtegoi were executed without trial (fhucydides 7.86.2). The prisonerswere sent to the quarries, where all periShed of exposure, starvation or diseaseafter 70 days of incarceration there, save for the few who were lucky enough tobe sold into slavery or those who, according to legend, 'were able to recite versesby Euripides from memory (Plutarch Nikias 29.2). This was Athens' greatestreverse and a turning point in the war. Thucydides, emphasiZing the foolhardyambition so typical of Imperial demouacy, says, 'the Athenians were beaten atall areas and altogether; all they suffered was great; they were annihilated, asthe saying goes, with a total annihilation, their fleet, their army ~ everythingwas annihilated, and few out of many returned horne' (7.87.6).

Siege of Mantineia (385 Be)Interfering with water by diverting rivers was an environmental ploy that wascapable of .....'!'Caking great havoc. I'ausanias, in his description (8.8.7-8, d.A!X)lIodoros Po/iorki!rika 157.1-158.3) of the siege of Mantineia mounted byAgcsipolis of Sparta, pinpoints the mechanical strength of mud-brick fortifications:

Against the blows of engines brick brings greater security thanfortifications built of stone. For stones break and arc dislodged from theirfittings; brick however, docs not suffer so much from engines, bUl itcrumbles under the action of water just as wax is melted by the sun.

Then again, Agcsipolis' conquest of Mantineia also highlights the structuralweakness of brickwork and the destructive potential of water. 57

LEFT ~ epic siege was prominentin the Greeks' view of their earlyhistory. namely the cen-year siegeofTro)'o Despite ttlis. Greece ~edbehtnd the Nea.r E<ist in thedevelopment of siegfl<rm.. Seenhere is ttle Persian Slege-mound at

f>ab,paphos. (Author·s collection)

8€lOW The North-East Gate ofPalaipaphos, seen here from theinner gate. formed one of thestrongholds of the fortif,CatiOM.The thoroughfare into the cityled through a narrow passagewith .1 sharp double bend. which~ overlooked by twO massivebmions. (Author's collection)

58

The Persian siege of P~aipapnos (49B Ie)

Effective tactics md tel:hnique5 lor s;"gE' warnre weredeYeIoped b)' large temtorial Near~Entem Il1ON.rchies dlatpossessed and were able to mobilize the necessary resources.or cheo;e the use of siege-mounds was the simples!., andpromised the ",,,,i(ken te$ulrs if conditions were ideal.TheAssyrians ernployt!d them with ruthless skill, as did the Lydian!and Persians. Herodotos says (1.16.2) AlyatteS of Lydia tookSmyrna (c.600 Be). and the discovery there of a huge ramp ofearth and f",lled trees, as well as stones, mud·brlcks and timbersfrom nearby houses. strongly suggeSts that this was the methodby which the Lydian. stormed the Greek city. According to

archaeological evidence. the ensuing action was essentially onefought with long-range _ilpOns; some 125 brorue arrowne..dsboth leaf-shape and of the triangular'Scythian' form, pepperedthe city and the siqe-mound itself (Cook 1958-59: 24).Acentury on.lhe Per1ians under ~rpagos easily arried theIonian cities by dire« usault. using !he siege-moond to getmen up and over the enemy w.aJls (Herodotos 1.1622).

Having described in great deta~ the double l».tde of Sabmis.Herodotos then glosses over the f'l=Wl re-cooquest of Cyprus(-i98/-i97 IIC)_ He $I:)'$,'of the besieged cities. Soli held OUt thelongest it fell in the fifth month after the Persians hadundermined its walts' (5.115.2). One of the anonymous 'besiegedCities' was Palajpaphos (Kouldia) and the siege-mound erectedby the Pers;ans has been identified. louted near the North-EastGate. excavations in and around the siege_mound have revealedthe buried remains of elaborate siege and counter-siege works.The siege-mound was constructed out of the wreckage from anearby sanctuary. together with earth "",d timber to fill the fosseand raise .1 7m-high ramp against the defences. Finds includedsome SOO bronze and Iron arrowheads and spearheads. and .1

Corinthi:rn helmet dated to around 500 BC. wh,ch representsthe only hoplite helmet found so hr in a baede context-~ disuibution of ml$siles through the siege-mound rnve:aIs

the tactics of bolh SKies.Three-winged arrowheads of "'" eastern

~.made to a standard pattern. "'"Cre corocentnted in particularMUS of the siege-mound. noably ill the re-en~tbetween thecurtain-walland nonn--.cem bastion of the North-East Gate_

These were me standardized weapons of professional archers.who provided coverir'l8 fire during the operation "",dcoocenlf.lted fire~r for the final assault. In contrast.four·sided javelin heads. crudely made. W<:'rI! SCattered widely over

the siege-mound.They otMwsly belonged to the deferoc:e. able

with the advantage of height to hurl javelins in a pattern ofcoounual harassment. Stone ~Is of VlIrying weight from 27 to

21.8'1: were found not toneentrated. but scattered mainly ;l\ongthe base of the fortifications. They probably belong to thedefence rather man the attack. and represent attempu to crushttle attackers in ttle final. desperate stage of ttle SIege - headswould have offered no more resistance than rotten apple5 to

these de«<nding stones.The impression is on the a=cking sideof a thOf'OUgnly professiOl\aJ body with a well-establishedrechnique of siege<:raft. which relied not on artillery~ to beinvented) to take the city but on the slege-mound, built doubtlessby impressed local labour and prote<:ted by Persian arcnery.

Nevertheless, It appears the PersiallS did not gain f';p,!aipaphoswithout a fierce struggle lor the siege-mound had be<.-nundermined by the besieged In twO dIfferent ways. First, by apassage dug through the berm and. second, by four tunnels CUtthrough the bedr¢ck underneath the fortifications, the woodenpit props ofTunnels I and 3 having been fired on completion bymeans of some flammable substance (possibly sulphur andpitch) carried in large bronze cauldrons.

ABOVE UFT Four rock.hewn tunnels passing bene:l.th me walls ofPalaip;tphos undermined the PersIan siege·mound.Tunnel I, seenhere,~ dug 2.8m below the base of the circuit and continuedthrough the soft conglomerue rock until It reached the bottomof the fosse. (Author's colle<:tion)

AIlO\If: RIGHT Through Tunnel t as much material of the Persianramp as possible was removed, and the cavity propped up withtimber. By means of some flammable substance carried in alarge bronze cauldron - note here calcined stone - the timberswere burnt. (Author's collection)

The ba.s.~liefs from the Nereidmonument are notable for theirdepiction of a siege in operation.Although a non-Greek dynast. thecommissioner wa.s obviously indose contaCt wilh Greek cultureand sooety, as the scenesn!presente<l on his tomb werepurely Hellenic. (Aulhor'scollection) 59

60

'Ask me for an image of civilization"said Seneca, 'and I'll show you [heSlIck of a great city'. In mis scenefrom [he Nereid monumenthoplites armed with Stones, manthe battlements. In me middle ofthe city is a woman. She alone looksout of the $Culpture str.light at d'Ieviewer: (Author's collection)

After laying waste to the surrounding countryside, Ag\'~ipolis detailed halfhis troops to dig a trench and erect a palisade around Mantincia, therebyinvesting it. The Mantineians, however, opted to resist as they had taken theprecaution of stockpiling a large reserve of grain within their city walls. Notwishing to commit hiS Peloponnesian allies to a long and drawn-oul siege,Ageslpolis decided to mount an aquatic attack against Mantineia. This wasaccomplished by diverting the Dphis, the river that flowed through the city, bymeans of a makeshift dam. The heavy rains of the previous winter meant thatthe river was in full spate, and the diverted water rapidly rose above the stonesocle of the circuit. As the rising water begun to affect the lower courses ofmud-brick, the upper ones also weakened. At first cracks appeared in thebrickwork and then signs of collapse.

Despite the Mantineians valiantly shoring up their crumbling defences withtimber baulks, total collapse was imminent, and so it was decided that the bestcourse of action was to surrender the city to Agesipolis. He razed most ofMantineia to the ground and dispersed the Mantineians back to their ancestralvillages (Xenophon Hellmika 5.2.4-5, ct. Diodoros 15.12.1).

Curiously Pausanias (8.8.9), in his version of the siege, concludes with thefollowing statement:

Agesipolis did not discover this method of demolishing the fortificationsof the Mantineians. It was a stratagem inwnted at an earlier date byKimon, the son of Miltiades, when he was besieging Boges and otherPersians who were holding Hon on the Strymon.

However, although Herodotos (7.107.1), Thucydides (1.98.1), Plutarch (Kill/Oil

7), Polyainos (7.24) and the OxrllyllcllllS Papyri (13.1610 f 6 == Fornara 6182) allcite Kimon's attack on cion (477/476 oc), none of them mention that heflooded the dty by damming up the Strymon. The capture of Elan wascelebrated in verse on three herms in Athens and the inscriplions, quoted byAischines (3.183-85) and Plutarch (Kill/Oil 7.3), support the above sources. Butthe diversion of the river, the cunning trick ascribed to Kimon by I'ausanias, isprobably a later invention to explain these 'Eion epigrams'.

Following the defeat of the spartans at Leuktra by Epameinondas, theMantineians were able to re-establish their city (Xenophon HdJcl/ika 6.5.3).Although still employing mud-brick in the construction of their new city walls,the ~anlineianstook the wise precaution of altering the channel of the Dphisso that it now flowed around, instead of through the city.

rThe sites today

The best location 10 survey the dty walls of Athens is in the Kerameik6sarchaeological site (fencoo), juSt 1km from '\'fonastiraki (Metro, Line 1) viaOdhos Ermou. Here part of the City Wall runs for some 183m in a north-southdirection and Is interrupted by the Sacred Gate and the Dipylon Gate. The sitealso has a museum (Oberl:inder Museum) that holds, amongst other artefacts,the statues and steJai recovered from the Thcmistoklean circuit.

Much of the Long Walls have long disappeared. The northern wall followsthe line of Odh6s Pirai6s and has been buried beneath the road. The southernwall is largely on the route of the original Athens--Peiraieus Electric Railway(Metro, Line 1). sections of it (an be seen in Neo Fallio, and also on the St'a .....ardside of the line between Kallithea and Moskhato stations.

Down in the Peiraieus a strctch of the Themistoklean circuit can be ~nnext to the Naval Museum of Greecc, which is in the bay south of lea. Byfollowing the road (Akti Themistokloous) just beyond the museum that runsround the Akti peninsula, well.preserved stretches of the Kononian drcuit canbe secn edging the shore.

Gyphtakastro is on the old Athens-Thebes road, and its impressive remainsstill dominate the!<aza pass between Attica and Soiotia. From the restaurant inKaza follow the gravel track signed Andent Fortress of £leutherae (open site).

Mantineia lies 12.5km nOrth of Tripolis just off the Tripolis-l'irgos road(follow sign for Ancient Mantincia). The site itself (fenced but open) is oppositca bizarre church (1972), a Minoan-classical-Byzantine folly dedicated to AyiaI'hoteini.

Ancient Messcne Is just outside the village of Mavromati, on the slopes of:Mount Ithome. Just Ikm to the north-west of the village are the impressiveremains of the Arcadian Gate (still in use) and part of the city walls (open site).:\1ost of the vast circuit has been unearthed or traced, and excavations at thearchaeological site (fenced) at the southern edge of the village are ongoing.

Useful contact informationOberlander Museum, Keramcik6sTel. (+30) 210 346 :1552

Archaeological Museum, MesscneTel. (+30) 272 405 1201

Greek National Tourist Organiz<ltion (EOT)Tel. (+30) 210 870 7000Email info@gnto.gr

WebsitesGreek National Tourist Organization (EOT)ww\V.gnto.gr

Ministry of Culture\Vw\v.cullure.gr

Helfrnic Tral'f;'/ling (journal)",lV\\'.tTavellill~;@tra\Fel1ing.gr

61

62

Bibliography

Camp, J. M., ''''otcs on till' towers and borders of classical Boiotia', Americallfaunlal ofArrhaoology95. 1991: 193-202

Camp, j. M., 1111' Ardlarology ofAllums, London: Yale University J~ess, 2001Cook, J. ~~., 'Old Smyrna, 1948-195 I', TIl(' AIIIIlIal or tJlf' Britisll School at

AlIlellS 53-54, 1958-59: 1-34Cooper, F. A., 'Epaminondas and Greek fortifications', Alllerielm/Olln/a/ of

Archaeology 90, 1986: 195Coulton, J. L Allcietli Gr('('k. Architects at Work: Problems o(Strrlcrure (//1(/ DeS;gll,

Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995Harding, 1'., 'Athenian defensive strategy in the fourth century', /'lu)('lIix 42,

1988: 61-71Kern, P. B., Ancient Siege Warfare, Bloomington: Indian3 University I'rc_~s, 1999Knigge, U., The Atllm/ill! Kemlllf'ikus: History - MOlllllllelllS - EX((IVl1tioIlS,

Athens: Deutsches Archilologisches Imtitut Athen, 1991L<mdels, J. G., Engineering ill tl1l' Allcienl Wurld, London: Constable, 2000Lawrence, ,\. W., Cr('ek Aims il/ Forli{iCtllion, Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1979Lawrence, A. W_ (TeviS{'() by R.A. Tomlinson), Greek Arc!litI'Ctllrt', London: Yale

University Press, 1996~·larsden, E. IN., Greek Will Ruman Artillery: Hi.~toricnl rkvelupme/lt, Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1969, 1999Munn, ~"l., n,l' Deff'l/5(' ofAUiCCl, Berkeley: University of California I'ress, 1993Obcr, J., Forlrf"SS Attica: lkfl'r/St' of till! AtiJellian Lund Frontier, .w+-322 BC,

l.ciden: E..j. Brill, 1985Ober, J., 'Early artillery towers: Messcnia, Boiotia, Attica, Mcgarid'. All/men/!

jOl/mal ofArcllarofogy 91, 1987: 569-604Ober, J., 'Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 40'1-322 IIC a reply', P/lomu

43, 1989: 294-301O!x'r, j., 'Hoplites and obstacles', in V.D. Hanson (ed.) lIaplitl.'S: nil' Classical

Grrek Battle Experience, I.ondon: Routledge, 1991, 173-96Il.uschenbusch, E., 'Die BevOlkerungszahl Griechenlands 1m 5. und 4. Jhs',

Zeitsc/lri(r {iir Papyrologil.' rmd cpisrapl1ik 56, 1984: 55-57Huschenbusch, E., 'NormaJroJis', Zl'ilsrllrift {iir Pap,vrologie I/Ird Episrapllik 59,

1985:253-63Sekunda, N. V., 'The sarin-a', Acta Ulliversitatis Lvdziemis 23, 200 I: 13-41Scranton, R. 1.., Greek Wal/s, Cambridge, Mass.: IIarvard University Press, 1941Vanderpool, E., 'Roads and forts in northwestern Attica', Cali(ofllia Simlies ill

C/tlssiwl Antiquity 11, 1978: 227-45Westlake, II. D., 'The progress of epildchimos'. Classical Qrwrterly 33, 1983: 12-24Winter, F. E., Gn'ek Fortifktltions, London: Routledge &. Kegan I'aul, 1971Wycherley, R. E., How Greek.~ Huill eWes, London: Norton, 1976

Glossary

Acropolis

ChoroCubit

Oeme

Dr-a(;hm~

Draked

lsodomkMino/minof';

Orthostilte

Palisade

Parodosfporodoi

Polis/poleis

Po~,

Postern

Talent

Literally 'high city'. the original citadel of a city

Territory, often as opposed to the polis that exploited it

Unit of measuremem equal to me length from the elbow to the tipof the middle finger (= 462.4mmfI8.21 in.)

Athens was divided into 1]9 administrative di=i<= or demes. many

of which wef"e within the city iue". but others were sepilratesettlemems scattered throughout the Attic countryside

Silver coin. ;M!rage daily wage of usual labourerStone block with a chisel-dressed band round the edge!> as ill guide

for the levelling of the rest of the surface

Masonry set in courses of equal height

Unit of weight equivalent to 100 Artie drachmas or

70 Aigineun drachr1\l,sBlock set on edge, usually ;at the foot of it wan

B.ilrrier c.onstrucred from ->Oden sukes, which are pomioned

vertia.11y in the ground

~1·waJk usually protecred by a crenellated parapet

A polis In size was like a city but in in independence a SGlte,

politically. however. its citizens follOW('d connitutional law and fought

on the approval of the assembly

Soft. coorse conchiferous limestone (tuf.l.)

Also known as a ullyporl.. this was essentially nor an entrance but an

exit de5igned for sudden sortie and counter-arrack

Fixed weight of silver equivalent to 60 minae (Attic-Euboic

la/antOn'" 26.2kg.Aiginetan lOionlOn = 4J.61<g)

63

IndexFigures in bold ~fer 10 illustrations

acropolises. importance of 10Agesipolis,ldng of Sp;lru ) I, 57-60Aigostherg 38--40. <10AiJlciu Taktikos 52Aisc.h,nes 30. 60Alexander II. king of Macedon 51A1kibiades 56Arw<imenes 51an:he.., 39Archidamo1; II. killl of~ru 53

""'" 9Arisooplwles 16. SOAristode 49

on ephebes 30on fortiliaotions 12.47on phabnxes 49onpole<s 4.10,16

:lf1'OW s.lits ) IAtMnian for'tffiac.ons 16-15

4th-ancury rep;ilJrs 9,20GtyWaII 17-2'o,p)'lon G.lte 17.20.22-23.22-21.26Irontiel" defences 25-30Ke~eik6s 11.13LongVQJls 16.18.19-20nQW;;Jdays 6'~ 24-25.24Rin& SlTefl. 25.25Sacred Gate 17,19,21.22use of brick 10.11

A<ho"conflictswithSp3l'u 17.18,19-20llnd En!tr;a 43lind Macedon 45militllrysmngth 46."7and siege of Syncu~ (415-413 1(:) 55.56-57and slegecraft 5 Iand Soonkm 45and TllirtyTynonu 44

bude styl~ 48--49Boiod~ and Boiol.i~n5 27.52bolt-shooters and bolts 20bricks 8-9.10-11building materials 10-12

catapult.! 25,39.51-52Corinth 11.'!6corselets 48

Dekelaia 7Delion, battle of (424 ec) 52Df!lphi 10Dem.!trios Poliorketes 20Demosthen.es (&ene",l) 57Demosthen.es (o"'tor) 9. 10,21."7Diodoros 51D;onys,os I. [)"'lIm of Sy",cuse 52Dryoskephillai (KiD) Pm 25.27

Son.Athenian arnlck on (477-476 te) 60Eleusis I Lll. <fO.-.41, 41-42Beutherai 27

see o/so GypIltokastro64 Epame,nondas 32, 33. 33. 34, SO

ephebe' 30~pit~ic:1mnwi 17equipment 48Ereui>. 8.43,43Euoo.. 43

financing 9formations see phalanxesfortiflCltions

<:ontemporary attitudes to 46. 47role 16......,.fon!c:oun: typo:' 26Messene 37-38.400¥Wbp type 32proteCtion of 16

~rals 49,~ ...Gylippos 56Gyphtola.W'O 13-14.25-30.27-3 I. 61

helmeu 48Herodotos 17,27.43-'19.58Homer 45hop/ires 46-52

I<znnb see PanaktonKimon 60Konon 20

"",,",9umachos 56'long wall' <:on<:ept 16, 18lucian 22","",,,,,, 9lyundros 18

Macedonians 45, "7, 5 IMMltineia 11,31-33.31-32,61

siege of (3B5 0<;) 57-60Mardonios 48-49masonry styles 12-14,13_14Messene 33-38.33-40,61

Aradian Gate 37-38,40mud_bricks 8--9.10-11Mykales'os, storming of (413 0<;) 50Myoupolis ,ee OinoeMytilene, siege of 5 I

Nemca River. banle of (394 0<;) 46Nereid monument 46,59-60Nikias 56-57

Oinoe (Myoupolis) 28Olynthos II

Palaipaphos. siege of (498 llC) 58-59.58--59Paookl:on (K:>V3sala) 28panoply 48PauSilllias 57,60Peiraieus 16.17.18.19--20.61PeisistralOS 41Perilcles 16.17.19.50Pe",ians "2, 43. 46. 58-59phabnxes 46, "7, 49-50

Mac:edonian 51

Philip lI,king of Macedon 25."7,51PhyIe 14,43.44pbnning 10Plataia. battle of (479 oc) 46Piacola. siege of (429-0127 llC) 50,52.53.

54Plato 25.30.46. 49Phltatl:h 21.49.60poIeis ... 10, 16. 46politial organization 4posterns: positionin& 32-33Pvudaia,s'egeol("301C) 51

rubble 8-9, IIRuw.enbusdl. E. 46

Samos.~ol(<H0-439llC)SO,51,52sorissoe 51shields "8,49.51,52~ft SO-52. S8-59SfqC!-(T"IOOnOs 53.54.58,58K>des 8-9.11.19,32.42Soloow 25Sounion 44,45,45Sp>~

arodAthens 17,18,19--20leuktn aftermath 39arod Manlineia 31military prowess ..7and siete of Mantine,a (385 IIC) 57--l.Oand siege of P1acoi;t (429-0127 IIC) 53--5-4and sle&" of 5yraC\lsc (41 H 13 DC) 56

Spe3f"li 48stone,wori<ingwith 12~15

stone.thn>w<:rs and shot 24.25stRrlfp ..9swords 485ynrosc.slegeof{"IHI3 IIC) 55,56--57

Thebans 53Theminokkls 17_19Theopompos 47Thraci;tns 50Thucydides

on Athenian life and fortifICations 16, 17.19.46on Attlean limiu 27on Dellon (424 oc) 52on epj!eichismoi 17on Mykalessos (413 0<;) 50on phal;lnl(es 49-50on siege of Pla[<l.la (429--427 O<;) 53on siege of 5yr:tcuse (415--413 K)56-57

timber revettJng 10lOWerS

AI&osthena 40,40ardllery 36.39.40,40Gyphtolcastro 28introduction of 16Messene 31.35.36-39

Vitruvius I I

weaponspusonal 48. 51siege 20.24.25.25,39,51-52