Greek city-states had no military citizens were called up for military service at need, and brought such weapons and equipment as they themselves could afford. With some exceptions (mostly related to the equipment of mercenaries or to benefactions from wealthy citizens), the authorities did not concern themselves with the supply of arms and armour. We can also dismiss the theory that it was intended to allow the equipment of large numbers of warriors on the cheap, since hoplites were not normally equipped by the state. If this was the reason for hoplites to shed their armour, it was both pointless and counter-productive, since the radical lightening of the panoply made hoplites more vulnerable to missiles. As long as they carried their big round shield, which defined them as hoplites, they would never be quick enough to overtake light troops in the chase (with the notable exception of young Spartans, who allegedly managed this a few times). Second, all the accounts in Thucydides and Xenophon of hoplites being exhausted and finally overcome by light troops show that no lightening of the panoply would ever have given hoplites a chance against missile troops. Indeed, Herodotos states that the Greeks had the advantage in close combat with the Persians precisely because they were more heavily equipped it seems absurd for them to conclude that the way forward would be to discard that advantage. This enemy should not have inspired a lightening of the panoply. Persian line infantry, even though its primary weapon was the bow, never ran from an advancing enemy they stood and fought him with spears, swords and axes. However, there are two problems with this theory. This idea was no doubt prompted by numerous descriptions from Classical sources of hoplites trying and failing to catch skirmishing light-armed troops in pursuit. Unfortunately, our literary sources do not actually discuss the topic, and so we are left guessing what purpose the lightening of the panoply served.Īnderson himself argued that hoplites felt a need to become more mobile, since they were increasingly fighting light-armed opponents, starting of course with the Persians during the Persian Wars (which happened right around the time the "lightening" becomes notable in the artistic record). For example, the 11,000 hoplites of the mercenary army called the Ten Thousand do not appear to have had much more than 50 cuirasses between them. This development is confirmed by Classical literary sources suggesting that the average hoplite around 400 BC wore no armour except a simple helmet, and relied for his defence primarily on his large round shield. Sometimes they wear some thick cloth over their tunics, but often they lack even such basic protection. By the late 5th and early 4th century, paintings and reliefs show ordinary hoplites wearing no body armour at all. He noted that hoplites on vases of the late 6th century BC tended to wear full bronze gear, but those of the 5th century BC usually wore a simpler cuirass that appears to be made of linen or leather, with bronze equipment becoming increasingly rare, the prerogative of prominent heroes in mythological scenes. Anderson, 1 mostly on the basis of artistic representations of hoplite armour. The argument for the lightening of the panoply was first made by J.K.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |