The Hoplite Heresy: Why We Don't Know How the Ancient Greeks Waged War

YouTube ^ | February 9, 2023 | The Historian's Craft

[SunkenCiv]

Hoplites are probably one of the first things that come to mind when one thinks of "Ancient Greece". Equipped with a bronze spear and wearing bronze armor or a linothorax, and hefting the aspis—the hoplite’s bronze shield—they fought in phalanxes. The classic mode of fighting in this formation was the "othismos", the push, with the aim being to disrupt the enemy phalanx and break their formation. But, over the past few decades, views on hoplite warfare have been called into question and seriously revised, because there are problems in the source material. So, what are these problems, and how do historians of Ancient Greece understand hoplite warfare?

The Hoplite Heresy: Why We Don't Know How the Ancient Greeks Waged War
The Historian's Craft | 54.5K subscribers | 96,547 views | February 9, 2023

[SunkenCiv]

[snip] ...Whilst a few passages do imply literal shoving withshields (Thuc. 4. 96. 2; Xen, Cyr. 7. 1 334), they do not suggest that therear ranks were pushing those in front of them forward, but that individuals in the front ranks were using their shields to buffet and try to unbalance individual enemies. However, support for the traditional view has continued to be passionate. In a reply to the most recent advocate of the orthodox view, Krentz commented: to the best of my knowledge I have not convinced anyone.

Yet, the advocates of massed shoving have failed to demolish these objections to their theory. The proponents of a series of loose-formation duels have also been unable to prove their case. An alternative model for the nature of hoplite battle is required. One of the most pressing needs is to explain the role of the rear ranks and the reason why deep phalanxes were so often successful. I believe that the key to the problem is to explore two factors, both of which have been largely ignored in the past. The first of these is the practical difficulty of moving large numbers of men as a group across even the flattest battlefield. The second factor is even more vital to understanding any type of battle, namely the morale of the participants. Too often in the past morale has been relegated to a minor role in hoplite battle. Even Hanson, who gives far greater attention to morale than any previous study, often fails to carry arguments to their logical conclusion. This is not a fault unique to those studying Greek warfare, but common to much of military history. By re-examining the primary accounts in the context of these factors I hope to present a more convincing picture of hoplite battle, and to demonstrate that these encounters did not involve massed shoving.

Before moving on to discuss these points, it is worth noting that it cannot be argued that close combat was a matter of massed shoving in any other period of military history, including those when armies were equipped solely with edged weapons. Indeed, when men became closely packed together, it was usually a sign that things had gone badly wrong and resulted in especially high casualties. [/snip]

The Othismos, Myths and Heresies: The Nature of Hoplite Battle | Adrian K. Goldsworthy | 7/27/2019

[SunkenCiv]

Transcript
0:07	yet the Greeks as I learned do wage war
0:10	and they do it senselessly in their
0:12	foolishness and stupidity
0:14	when they have declared war against each
0:16	other they come down to the fairest and
0:18	most level ground that they can find and
0:20	fight there so that the victors come off
0:22	with great harm I will say nothing of
0:25	the defeated for they are utterly
0:26	destroyed if they must make war upon
0:29	each other they should each discover
0:30	where they are in the strongest position
0:32	and make the attempt there the Greek
0:35	custom then is not good so wrote the
0:38	historian Herodotus placing the words in
0:41	the mouth of a Persian
0:42	this is the classic picture of several
0:45	centuries of Greek Warfare heavily
0:47	armored Soldiers the famous hoplites
0:49	arranged in a Phalanx duking it out on
0:52	the level playing field somewhere in
0:54	Greece but this picture has several
0:56	problems in the whole field of Greek
0:58	military history revolving around the
1:00	subject has been upended over the past
1:03	decades
1:04	what I want to do in this video then is
1:06	explore Greek Warfare in the controversy
1:09	currently raging among professional
1:10	historians sometimes called the Phalanx
1:13	heresy the central question in the study
1:15	of Greek Warfare is not only why
1:18	considering that Greece is an extremely
1:20	Rocky landscape the Greeks develop the
1:22	form of War based around organized
1:24	groups of heavily armored soldiers
1:26	fighting with Spears but also when at
1:29	first glance it does not appear to make
1:31	much sense the common image of the Greek
1:33	hoplet usually looks something like the
1:35	following
1:36	The Shield used by the hoplites the
1:39	aspis measured on average approximately
1:41	90 centimeters in diameter and weighed
1:44	about seven kilograms and was about 25
1:46	to 38 millimeters thick being
1:49	constructed of wood faced with bronze
1:51	completing the Soldier's Armament would
1:53	have been a bronze breastplate although
1:55	it was eventually supplanted by the
1:57	lenothorax Apparently made of linen
1:59	bronze Grieves and a bronze helmet with
2:02	the printable weapon being a spear
2:04	initially about 2.5 meters in length but
2:07	eventually growing to about 4.5 meters
2:10	the shields overlapped forming a Phalanx
2:13	formation with at least seven rows of
2:15	soldiers although sometimes it was as
2:17	deep as 40 rows
2:19	in short This Is War characterized by
2:22	the use of heavy infantry but as we'll
2:25	see in this video there are issues
2:26	surrounding this picture with about 20
2:29	to 30 percent of Grease being flat
2:31	ground Farmland was comparatively scarce
2:33	and this forms the Crux of the
2:35	traditional argument about ancient Greek
2:37	Warfare known among professionals as the
2:40	Orthodox view in this line of reasoning
2:42	the hoplite directly equates to the
2:44	Phalanx it is not a standalone type of
2:47	soldier and it was developed in the late
2:49	8th or the early 7th Century BC that is
2:52	classical Warfare developed in the early
2:55	Archaic Period these were the famous
2:57	citizen soldiers of Greece who fought
3:00	because they had a stake in the system
3:01	in the Orthodox view this is sometimes
3:04	referred to as the Greek middle class
3:06	because Farmland was scarce phalanxes
3:09	had to fight on the planes because the
3:11	former soldiers could not risk losing
3:13	anything to the enemy they had to stand
3:15	and fight
3:16	and when the Phalanx is engaged they
3:19	fought in a manner characterized by
3:21	orphismos shoving the opposing hoplites
3:24	charged at a run crashing into the enemy
3:27	front rank if one side did not collapse
3:29	as a result of this crash then the men
3:31	in the ranks behind the first press the
3:33	broad Shields against the back of the
3:35	man in front and pushed him forward the
3:37	combined physical thrust of one densely
3:39	packed mass of men was opposed by the
3:41	thrust of the enemy phalanx
3:43	eventually one side was forced back and
3:46	its front collapsed The Hop lights
3:48	perhaps being literally knocked over and
3:49	trampled there was little or no actual
3:52	fighting after the initial very brief
3:54	Clash of Spears the shoving was decisive
3:58	a hop late battle was literally a
4:00	struggle of mass against Mass the
4:03	long-term result is that phalan's
4:04	Warfare was another aspect of Greek life
4:06	characterized by competition with
4:08	Unwritten Rules of Engagement based
4:10	around honor and mutual respect and
4:13	missile troops and Cavalry would not
4:15	often employed War became a pre-arranged
4:18	affair to the extent that one historian
4:20	in particular referred to it as an
4:22	absurd conspiracy designed to
4:24	concentrate the horrors of War into a
4:26	restrictive specially designed manner
4:28	what altered this system was the
4:30	prolonged conflict of the Peloponnesian
4:32	War where Athens refused to face Sparta
4:35	in the field the Athenians instead
4:37	choosing to hide behind their walls
4:38	which forced the system to change and
4:41	break down the end result eventually was
4:43	the conquest of the Greek city-states by
4:45	Philip and Alexander or Macedon whose
4:48	reformed Army was beyond anything the
4:50	Greeks could possibly stand up to
4:52	however among historians a new view has
4:55	arisen in recent decades known as The
4:57	heretical View
4:59	they point out that we actually have
5:01	very little evidence for supporting the
5:02	Orthodox View and that that particular
5:05	understanding of Greek war comes not so
5:07	much from cherry-picking sources so much
5:09	as it does from over emphasizing certain
5:11	points and applying statements from
5:14	texts centuries beyond what can actually
5:15	be applied to we have very little Source
5:18	material for the Archaic Period but we
5:20	do know that Greeks fought and Phalanx
5:22	is in The Classical period and what
5:25	older generations of historians have
5:27	done is take the characterization of The
5:29	Classical period and push it back onto
5:32	the archaic and like in Greek war to
5:35	rugby or football no Greek historian for
5:38	example emphasizes that of these most
5:40	involves all of the troops in the
5:41	Phalanx rather it has been assumed to be
5:44	the case simply because the Phalanx had
5:45	multiple rows of troops and the majority
5:48	of the Rose must have been there for
5:49	something because they were not in the
5:52	front lines
5:53	this is actually the case with much of
5:55	the dispute over how the Greeks engaged
5:57	in war
5:58	what did the sources actually mention
6:00	what do they leave out how do we
6:03	interpret these things and what was the
6:05	norm for Greek Warfare and what were the
6:07	exceptions all of this then heavily
6:09	revolves around the question of
6:11	chronology and the actual development of
6:13	the Greek phalanx
6:15	there were three major views here
6:17	the rapid adoption Theory argues that
6:19	the Phalanx was developed between about
6:21	725 and 675 BC and that the heavily
6:25	armed hoplite was restricted by use of
6:27	the heavy Shield
6:29	which forced soldiers to develop the
6:31	formation
6:32	and once this was done it proved so
6:35	effective that their opponents had to do
6:36	the same
6:38	essentially the hot plate equates
6:40	directly to the Phalanx the gradualist
6:42	adoption Theory extends the timeline
6:44	slightly between 750 and 650 BC and
6:48	seized the creation of the Phalanx as
6:50	emerging in a series of small steps but
6:53	which ultimately became the dominant
6:54	model for Greek Warfare by about 650
6:57	because it was so effective the last
6:59	idea known as the extended gradualist
7:01	Theory places the development of the
7:04	Phalanx between about 750 and about 450
7:07	BC
7:08	the first two are associated with the
7:10	Orthodox View and the latter usually
7:12	with the heretical view Central to that
7:15	question of chronology is a small piece
7:17	of pottery from about 640 BC discovered
7:19	in Italy only 26 centimeters tall known
7:23	as the kiji vase it depicts Greek
7:25	warriors in battle wearing bronze armor
7:28	equipped with large Shields that overlap
7:30	this has been used to bolster the
7:32	Orthodox view that the hoplite equates
7:34	to the Phalanx that is heavily armored
7:37	spearmen were present in at least the
7:39	mid-7th century BC and that this type of
7:42	War therefore had an early development
7:44	this view has been called in the
7:46	question by the Heretics however because
7:48	while the armor appears to be what the
7:50	hoplites would wear in which we do have
7:52	surviving material evidence for
7:54	the men are not equipped with Spears
7:57	these are instead javelins and they
7:59	appear to be carrying two or perhaps
8:02	javelins alongside Spears
8:05	they are raised overhead and it's not
8:07	clear if they are intended to be thrown
8:09	or thrust and the textual sources from
8:12	this period of archaic Greece often
8:14	discuss men throwing their weapons not
8:16	necessarily stabbing as later sources
8:18	directly tell us
8:20	the soldiers are also not in a Phalanx
8:22	it has been pointed out that the other
8:24	soldiers are not directly behind their
8:26	allies but are instead running to them
8:28	perhaps as reinforcements and thus the
8:31	combatants may actually be dueling but
8:34	because of the medium it has to be
8:35	depicted in two-dimensional form hence
8:38	the confusion the point that the
8:39	Heretics raised with this is that the
8:41	chronology for a rapid adoption of
8:43	Phalanx Warfare in the Archaic Period is
8:45	not necessarily obvious and Crystal
8:47	Clear in fact it's actually fairly murky
8:50	the Heretics also point out that
8:52	contrary to what the Orthodox Scholars
8:54	have argued our texts from the time of
8:57	classical Greek Warfare do discuss
8:59	fighting on fields but they also discuss
9:02	fighting in mountain passes with the
9:04	Battle of Thermopylae perhaps being the
9:05	most famous
9:07	fighting behind strong points and the
9:09	pursuing of rounded soldiers and
9:11	massacres the Greeks opted for surprise
9:14	attacks and selected precarious ground
9:16	whether numbers or lack thereof would
9:18	give them an edge against opponents
9:20	including both the Persians and each
9:23	other
9:24	the chronology is also incorrect for an
9:26	early adoption of the Citizen Soldier
9:28	coming into being because if we take the
9:30	Orthodox view seriously we should be
9:33	looking for what has been called a Greek
9:35	middle class which fermented what is
9:37	usually known as the hoplite revolution
9:39	in the 8th Century BC that does not show
9:42	up until the 5th Century BC
9:45	this argument is usually extended to
9:48	support the idea of a class of Citizen
9:49	soldiers being crucial to the
9:51	development of Athenian democracy but
9:53	the reality appears to be that prior to
9:56	the 5th Century Hop Led to a drawn from
9:58	a more mixed bag of people from across
10:01	Greek society and it tended towards the
10:03	wealthy this group of people does
10:05	eventually appear but it is
10:07	significantly later than what the
10:09	Orthodox view requires so what does this
10:11	mean for Greek Warfare how did they
10:13	actually fight
10:15	well the short answer is that this is
10:17	still up in the air but current research
10:20	is starting to move towards a new
10:21	paradigm of fighting sometimes called
10:24	the new Orthodoxy
10:25	our key text on Greek Warfare such as
10:28	thucydides xenophon and polybius among
10:30	others reflect Warfare as it stood at
10:33	the end of The Classical period and the
10:35	early Hellenistic era
10:37	this is when we really have completely
10:39	unequivocal evidence of Phalanx Warfare
10:41	in the manner that we typically conceive
10:43	of it it is during the Peloponnesian War
10:46	that we see the supposed Rules of
10:48	Engagement such as establishing trophies
10:50	over battlefields and truces to recover
10:52	the dead which apparently dictated Greek
10:55	Warfare for three centuries actually
10:57	coming into being
10:59	this is also when we have evidence of
11:01	how large of Phalanx actually is these
11:04	texts also reflect ideals of warfare not
11:07	necessarily the reality
11:09	none of this by itself is overly
11:11	controversial what is controversial is
11:14	the role of atheismos in the phalanx
11:17	the new interpretation is that rather
11:19	than being some sort of massive pushing
11:21	contest only the first two or three
11:24	ranks could really have been engaged in
11:25	combat and it cannot have been a
11:28	formation that was too tightly packed
11:29	because pressure from the rear would
11:31	have made the front lines unable to move
11:33	and unable to use their Spears instead
11:36	the termophysmos refers to pushing or
11:39	shoving only in the first few ranks of
11:41	the phalanx which might have been
11:43	organized in a slightly looser spacing
11:45	enabling a unified Shield wall if
11:48	required but also limited dueling
11:51	with the exception of the Spartans the
11:53	majority of the Hop lights were not full
11:55	time and thus not fully trained Soldiers
11:57	the idea of an ordered well-trained body
12:00	of spearmen Marching In lockstep appears
12:02	to be an anachronism projected backward
12:04	onto the archaic and early classical
12:06	periods from the professional armies of
12:09	the Hellenistic era
12:11	it appears to have been normal for
12:13	soldiers when advancing towards the
12:15	enemy to break into a run in which case
12:18	somehow distance the others causing the
12:20	Phalanx to at least temporarily
12:22	partially break up
12:23	if the first few ranks wavered and broke
12:26	then the formation would be in disarray
12:28	which is what Lucidity is for example
12:30	actually tells us so rather than the
12:33	whole formation shoving into each other
12:35	the depth of the Phalanx was designed
12:37	with the bravest men to be in the front
12:39	and the rear with the more timid troops
12:41	in the middle and would have helped keep
12:43	formation as it moved and lend support
12:45	to the front line troops as they fought
12:48	more experienced troops appeared to have
12:50	formed shallower phalanxes as the
12:52	Athenians did in eight ranks against 16
12:54	fielded by the syracuseans in 415. no
12:58	matter how deep this was though there
13:00	was a tendency for hoplites to move
13:02	towards the right as they Advanced and
13:04	as fighting began in an attempt to
13:06	protect themselves with their partner's
13:08	Shield although even this has been
13:09	questioned recently because it has been
13:11	pointed out that soldiers in the Phalanx
13:13	fought in a side profile in which case
13:16	The Shield would have covered most of
13:17	the body battles in The Classical period
13:19	Then tended to focus on opening gaps in
13:22	the enemy's Phalanx rather than outright
13:24	shoving match with the aim being to open
13:27	a gap and then pour in the older view
13:30	was that Warfare was dominated by the
13:32	hot blades but recent work on Greek
13:33	Cavalry and archers has demonstrated
13:36	that the Greeks were aware that the
13:37	Phalanx was not the end-all be-all that
13:40	it was vulnerable
13:41	it is for that reason that we read of
13:43	Phalanx as being formed with their backs
13:45	or one flank blocked by a body of water
13:48	or some geographical feature or
13:50	otherwise supported by calvary or
13:52	missile troops far from being the
13:54	dominant player on the battlefield
13:56	classical Greek war saw the Phalanx as
13:58	one piece in Combined arms Warfare
14:02	Beyond this pitched battles were a rare
14:04	occurrence which is why they stand out
14:06	in the source material
14:08	skirmishes sieges raiding and the
14:12	wholesale Massacre of civilians is a
14:14	Mainstay of Greek war in the Classical
14:15	period and certainly appears to have
14:18	been something of the norm in the
14:20	preceding archaea due to the long
14:21	development of this style of warfare the
14:24	Peloponnesian War rather than
14:25	representing the breakdown of the
14:27	Phalanx instead represents the
14:29	culmination of the Greek way of war and
14:32	marked not the decline of the Greek
14:34	city-states but the apogee of Greece and
14:37	the maturation of the Citizen Soldier in
14:39	the form that we have come to know so
14:41	well

[SunkenCiv]

The Hop developed in the 1950s, and oddly, the Hop light developed in the ancient world.

[Red Badger]

Hop along, Cassidy..................

[BradyLS]

People wonder. But we live in an age where we have a few artifacts, sparse records, and ample supplies of people with free time, interest, and theories.

Why not put them to work in conducting exercises. Kit a few thousand able bodies and put the academics’ theories to the test. No killing and no blood drawn (if it can be helped) but formations could be organized and participants can have at it.

Find out what it takes to organize, train, and employ companies of slingers, cavalry, peltasts, and hoplites in field. And let the participants improvise using the tools and weapons we know they had at hand.

Steven Peessfield’s _The Gates of Fire_ would be a great primer to get people in the spirit.

[SunkenCiv]

Oooh, “if it can be helped”, heh, I think there isn’t much of a reenactor community for Greek hoplite warfare, at least among modern Greeks, but it is studied and tested on a small scale here and there on university campuses in the UK and elsewhere.

Reenactment to test this particular idea (the pushing technique, which would clearly favor the more numerous side) should cover the Battle of Leuctra, which imho finally settled the Peloponnesian War.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Battle_of_Leuctra/

https://www.greece-is.com/day-ancient-greece-battle-leuctra-371-bc/

[nicollo]

I don’t know about the particulars of battle tactics, but I do know that Greek warfare was predicated on a relatively low population, which enhanced the value of the individual soldier and/or necessitated a far greater dependency on the individual solder, especially as opposed to larger empires who could conscript mass armies and not care about individual losses.