HOPLITE AND PhALANX IN ARcHaIc aND CLaSSIcaL GREEcE: a REaSSESSMENt fernando echeverra

1. Introduction: A Matter of Concept

CHOLARSHIP ON THE

Archaic Greek military has been frequently reduced to a discussion on the rise of the hoplite and the introduction of the phalanx. The methodological approach to the issue has often consisted of an attempt to discover the phalanx in the sources: to identify a closed formation or a specific kind of heavy-armed warrior in the scattered pieces of literary, iconographic, and archaeological evidence. As a result, research on the Archaic Greek military has at times been carried out with the hoplite and the phalanx already in mind. The debate on the origins of the hoplite and the phalanx has been instrumental in the general interpretation and understanding of the Archaic period for a considerable number of scholars: those supporting the idea of a hoplite reform have argued for the existence of tight connections between military developments and broader social, political, and economic transformations in Archaic Greece.1 Others, more critical of the determinism inherent in the phalanx-polis equation,2 have tried to make new sense of the scarce, scattered, and at times contradictory pieces of evidence, and offer alternative explanations to the Greek military evolution in the Archaic period that imply a reconsideration of the nature and the role of the phalanx.3 In such a long-standing and broad discussion, conceptual accuracy in de fining the terms hoplite and phalanx becomes essential. Attempts have

This paper was written during a postdoctoral stay at the University College of London, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. It offers an updated revision of my previous treatment of the issue (Echeverra 2008, 14491), to which I refer for a complete catalogue of sources, texts, and references. I have considerably revised the arguments exposed there, and moderated the blunt exposition of particularly controversial ideas, but the catalogue of references remains indispensable. All dates are B.C.E. and all translations of ancient texts are my own unless otherwise noted. I am greatly indebted to Hans van Wees for reading an earlier draft of the paper and making valuable comments. I also appreciate the challenging remarks of CPs anonymous referees. They all contributed to improve the ideas and arguments presented here. All remaining mistakes are of course my own. 1.Lorimer 1947 and 1950; Andrewes 1974; Detienne 1968; Greenhalgh 1973; Cartledge 1977; Salmon 1977; Latacz 1977; Snodgrass 1964, 1980, and 1993; Murray 1980; Bryant 1990; Hanson 1990, 1991, and 1999; Bowden 1995; Schwartz 2002 and 2009. 2. About determinism, phalanx, and the polis, see Echeverra 2008 and 2010. 3. Pritchett 1985; Wheeler 1991; Storch 1998; Krentz 2000 and 2002; van Wees 1986, 1988, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001b, and 2004; Rawlings 2007; Osborne 2009. To a lesser extent, Forrest 1966, Starr 1991, and de Ste. Croix 1983 and 2004.

Classical Philology 107 (2012): 291318 [ 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/12/10704-0001$10.00

291

292

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

been made to define both concepts,4 but practical use and repetition have resulted in the fossilization of working, informal definitions of them: the hoplite is commonly regarded as a heavy-armed warrior identified by a specific set of weapons, of which the Argive shield is the paramount item; the phalanx is usually connected with closed order, neat files and ranks, the use of hoplite equipment, cohesion, and discipline. These broad definitions, corresponding roughly to the military situation of the Classical period, are rarely questioned by modern scholars, and their meanings are thus generally taken for granted. But since no chronological or geographical connotations are usually attached, both phalanx and hoplite can be (and have been) transferred to various contexts and historical periods, from Homer to Polybius, from Etruria to the Near East. This results in a methodological problem. This work is a reconsideration of the concepts of hoplite and phalanx from the point of view of the extant literary and epigraphical evidence. As it will be argued here, both hoplite and phalanx are concepts belonging to the Classical period. Whether they were formulated then for the first time or reinterpreted from older and previous notions will be elucidated below, but the extant evidence suggests that the terms as we conceive them must be linked to the specific literary and intellectual circumstances of the Classical period. 2. The Hoplite Let us start with the hoplite. Commonly interpreted as the quintessential Greek heavy-armed infantryman, the hoplite has been consistently and repeatedly situated in the Archaic period, whether in the fragments of Tyrtaeus and Callinus or in the painted scenes of Archaic vases. This identification has been possible usually through the so-called hoplite panoply, the set of weapons typically associated with the hoplite. It is a fairly established consensus that the Corinthian helmets, spears, breastplates, and Argive shields depicted on Greek vases represent hoplites in a fairly accurate way. The crucial element in that identification is the Argive shield. Anthony Snodgrass long ago connected the blazons on vase paintings with the Argive shield,5 thus facilitating an equation that has been (and still is) extraordinarily influential. The equation is based on two connected arguments: first, the alleged qualities of the Argive shield (supposedly more fitted for the phalanx due to the presence of the double grip and its combination of concavity, broad surface, and sturdiness), and second, its identification with the Greek term (to be discussed below). Thus the following picture emerges: a new type of warrior (the hoplite), determined by a new set of weapons (the hoplite panoply) and characteristically belonging to a middle class of propertied farmers (the hoplite class), would evolve through the eighth and seventh centuries, leading to a new tactic (the phalanx).6
4.Hanson 1990 and 1999; van Wees 2001a and 2004; Wheeler 2007, 19293; Schwartz 2009. 5.Snodgrass 1964, 6163. 6. Among others, see Nilsson 1928, 246; Andrewes 1974, 34; Snodgrass 1965a, 115 and 1980, 1012; Cartledge 1977, 23; Holladay 1982, 99; Bryant 1990, 49798; Jameson 1992, 158; Donlan 1997, 4547; Hanson 1996, 29092 and 1999, passim; Schwartz 2002 and 2009.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

293

Serious criticism, however, can be raised against this view. The identification of a set of weapons is not reason enough by itself to talk about hoplites, especially in the Archaic period. Moreover, scholarship tends to apply the term to realities far beyond the limits of what ancient Greeks themselves considered or intentionally recognized as a hoplite. It is necessary to review the literary sources in order to reconsider the actual meaning of the word hoplite and the possible contexts for its use.7 Argive Shield, Hoplite, and The first step must be to dig into the origins of the term hoplite. As John Lazenby and David Whitehead have recently shown,8 there is a widespread consensus that the hoplite took his name from his most characteristic weapon, the shield, which was supposed to be called . Scholars have accepted this view for decades.9 The apparent connection between hoplon, hoplite, and Argive shield is considered so strong that, as Lazenby and Whitehead point out, textbooks and reference works on warfare serve it up with monotonous regularity as if stating a simple fact.10 But this connection is actually based on at least two assumptions: first, that hoplon is the most common term in Greek to designate the Argive shield; second, that the term hoplite derives from it. Both assumptions have been proved to be wrong. The first assumption can be traced back to Diodorus, who stated (15.44.3) that the hoplites were called originally after their shields [], exactly in the same way as the peltasts were called after their . As Lazenby and Whitehead show, the phrase mixed up the terms hoplits and aspis, making the statement confusing and unreliable.11 Diodorus testimony seems to justify the idea that the Argive shield could be connected with the term hoplits around the first century C.E., but it in fact makes a much stronger connection between the Argive shield and the term aspis. In the Archaic period, both Archilochus (frag. 5) and Alcaeus (frags. 179 col. 2.6, 357.8) refer to their shields as aspis. If these aspides are in fact Argive shields (which is likely but uncertain), then the connection of the weapon with the term aspis, confirmed by Diodorus and Pausanias, could find some firm ground. This connection seems much clearer in the Classical period.12
7. What follows is a cursory analysis of the literary evidence which, for obvious reasons of space, cannot be undertaken at length here. Arguments that would perhaps require more patient exposition are thus merely summarized, relying on relevant bibliography to complete the picture. I am, however, confident that the general scheme retains its consistency. 8.Lazenby and Whitehead 1996. 9.E.g., Adcock 1967, 3; Hammond 1967, 110 and 1982, 340; Murray 1980, 124; Ducrey 1985, 49, 50, pl. 27; Hanson 1990, 27; Anderson 1991, 15, 272; Mitchell 1996, 89; Schwartz 2009, 25; even Lazenby himself, 1985, 30. LSJ maintain that hoplon is the large shield from which the men-at-arms took their name of hoplitai. 10.Lazenby and Whitehead 1996, 27. 11.Lazenby and Whitehead 1996, 28. It is exactly the same mistake made by Pausanias when dealing with the institution of the armored race in the Olympic Games circa 520 B.C.E.: in 5.8.10, he states that in that period a hoplites race [ ] was established, but he again uses the term aspis (and not hoplon) when explaining that the runners had to carry their shields (5.8.10.45: ). 12. Thucydides, for example, refers to the shield as aspis 12 times, most likely shields of the Argive type. For the Argive shield in the Classical period, see Hanson 1990, 6571. As a result, instead of hoplits, the term (present in Homer Il. 4.90, 4.201, 4.221, 5.577, 8.155, 8.214, 11.412, 13.680, 16.490, 16.541, 16.593,

294

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

Regarding the second assumption, Lazenby and Whitehead have convincingly shown that hoplites did not take their name from their shield (), but from the whole panoply ().13 It is possible, however, to be much more precise: analysis of the group hoplon/-a in Archaic Greek literature reveals that it originally had no firm connection with military matters, the connection emerging and consolidating only gradually. We are naturally dealing here with poetic language, characteristically unsystematic, so it must be treated with caution. The group, however, seems to derive from a stem originally meaning tool or implement,14 while the plural, much more frequently used, referred generically to a set of tools.15 In this semantic context, references to weapons or any kind of military equipment represent a clear minority, both in Homer and in later Archaic poetry.16 At this time, the military sense of hopl- is thus just a possibility (a rare one) in a group with a broad and still unspecialized meaning. The connection of the group with a military meaning will become firmer and more widespread only at the beginning of the fifth century,17 while the first unequivocal identification between the Argive shield and the term hoplon (in the singular) will appear much later, in Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.25).18 Here, as in the following arguments, we are dealing with the unfortunately unbalanced distribution of the literary sources, concentrated in the Classical period and almost nonexistent in the Archaic period. The argument ex silentio is always controversial, and must be treated with caution, but it is an argument at hand, and a fairly useful one if we stick to what information we have and avoid hypothesizing about what we do not have. Since the discovery of entirely new narratives coming from the Archaic period is out of the question (least of all narratives in prose), and only further examples of lyric and epic poetry could be expected to be found, I will consciously treat the extant evidence as representative of the literature of the age and thus as suitable for
and then lost until recovered by Euripides Heracl. 277; El. 443; HF 1192; Ion 198; IA 1069) should have been preferred to designate a shield-bearer. 13.Lazenby and Whitehead 1996, 33. 14. The group is almost certainly connected with the verb (to be about, to busy oneself with, LSJ), with a -lo- suffix. See Chantraine 1990, s.v. hoplon. 15. The term appears 19 times in Homer, 17 of them in the plural form. Their meaning is commonly tackle of a ship, and even tools; the two cases in the singular are usually translated as rope. The verb can be found 23 times as well, but 21 of them are referring to the common action of preparing (a chariot, a ship, or even a meal). These patterns (predominance of the plural form, generic meaning as tools) are preserved in the scarce testimonies of the extant Archaic Greek literature. Detailed information and a complete list of references, sources, and meanings, with a discussion of other related terms (such as / or ), can be found in Echeverra 2008, 15152. 16. Hopla as weapons: Hom. Il. 10.254, 10.272, 18.614, 19.21. Hopliz as to arm oneself: Hom. Il. 8.55; Od. 24.495. Hesiod uses hopla in a possible reference to weapons (Theog. 853), and we later find the term in Tyrtaeus (11.38), the word in a fragment also attributed to Tyrtaeus (frag. 16b, Page 857; see Page 1967, 455), and the expression in Mimnermus (frag. 9.3). The terms panoploi, hyperoplon, and enoploi certainly indicate a military meaning, but the fact that they seem to be variations that are just mentioned once suggests that Greek vocabulary is still exploring the different possibilities of the broad semantic field of hopl-. Apart from these, there are no further references in Archaic literature until the fifth century. 17. Hopla as weapons in the first half of the fifth century: Pind. Pyth. 10.14; Nem. 1.51, 7.25, 8.27, 9.22, 10.14; frag. 106.6; Simon. Epig. 6.215.2; Bacchyl. Dub. 62b.10; Dyth. 18.33. See also IG I3 1 (Athenian cleruchs in Salamis; Meiggs and Lewis 1988, no. 14), dated to c. 500. 18.See Lazenby and Whitehead 1996, 31.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

295

my exposition. Arguments ex silentio will be in any case further supported with additional arguments. As a result, the conclusion follows that during the Archaic period the group hopl- preserved a generic meaning without a firm connection with the military field, its military meaning only becoming widespread during the Classical period. So if the term hoplite is to be connected with the plural form hopla (as Lazenby and Whitehead suggest), this identification could only have taken place after 500, when the military meaning of the group hopl- finally started to predominate. This would render extremely unlikely the presence of the term hoplits with a military sense during the Archaic period, and it is in fact in absolute accordance with the extant literary evidence: as we shall see below, the term hoplits will appear in the sources for the first time around 470. The Hoplite in Literature and Epigraphy Snodgrass suggested that the term hoplits must have been already in use at the time of the first race in arms at the Olympic games (c. 520), and quoted Pausanias (5.8.10) to support his view.19 Leaving aside Pausanias hoplonaspis mistake (mentioned above, p. 293 n. 11), a source almost six centuries later than the events (and assuming that the race received the same name in the sixth century) cannot be taken as a solid ground for the identification. For that reason, it is necessary to look into contemporary sources to trace the origins of the term.20 The first occurrences of hoplits in Greek literature, as far as we know, can be found in Pindar (Isthm. 1.23, dated c. 470) and Aeschylus (Sept. 466 and 717, dated to 467). The term seems to spread gradually from then on, and it can be found in Herodotus, Euripides, and contemporary Attic inscriptions.21 Thucydides enormously expands its uses in his work, with 180 occurrences, and during the 420s we find it again in Euripides, Aristophanes, and an Attic inscription describing the treaty of Athens and Argos in 420.22 In the following decade, new references to hoplitai can be found in Euripides (HF 190; Phoen. 1096, 1191), Aristophanes (Av. 402, 448; Lys. 394, 590, 1143), and two new inscriptions dated to around 410 (IG I3.2.1191.60; IG I3.1.118.28 31). The term will preserve its predominance during the fourth century, being found in Xenophon (186 occurrences), Ephorus, Plato, Aristotle, and the Attic orators.23 Thus the following picture emerges: the term makes its first appearance in the extant sources at the beginning of the fifth century (a coherent date
19.Snodgrass 1964, 204; cf. 1980, 152. The idea is later subscribed to by Wheeler 1991, 134. 20.See also Lanzenby and Whiteheads treatment of the issue (1996, 32). I am only concerned about occurrences of the term at this point, so I will not make distinctions between the different literary genres, distinctions that will be relevant further on. 21.Herodotus: 3.120.14, 4.160.13, 5.111.2, 6.117.10, 7.158.16, 7.173.10, 7.202.3, 7.217.6, 8.38.7, 8.95.4, 9.12.1, 9.17.7, 9.28.12, 9.29.3, 9.29.4, 9.30.4, 9.63.10. Euripides: Heracl. 694, 699, 729, 800. Inscriptions: IG 3 I .1.138.12 (dated to c. 430) and IG I3.1.60.1418 (dated either to 430 or 417). 22.Euripides: Andr. 458, 760, 1123; Supp. 585. Aristophanes: Eq. 1369; Vesp. 359. Inscription: IG I3.1.83.2224 (dated to 420; cf. Thuc. 5.47.8). The complete catalogue of Thucydides references, too long to be reproduced here, can be found in Echeverra 2008, 15455, n. 11. 23. The complete catalogue of references with their texts can be found in Echeverra 2008, 15357.

296

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

provided by both Aeschylus and Pindar) and, after a short gap, it spreads gradually from 430 onward, experiencing a swift expansion by 420400 and becoming a common word for the Classical historians and orators in the fourth century. This, I suggest, can be taken as a sign that hoplits was a strictly Classical word, on two grounds. First, there were other ways to refer to the heavy-armed infantryman during the Archaic period, in much better accordance with the literary conditions and characteristics of the time (see the analysis below, pp. 29699). Second, issues of source availability or literary genres seem to have little to do with this phenomenon: the absence of works in prose in the Archaic period is not a real obstacle in this case, because the generalization of the term hoplits can be entirely traced in the poetic language of the tragedy, where (as I will argue below) the new term coexists with other concepts for a long time. In fact, the term is invented in the realm of poetry, and then transferred to prose in a matter of a few decades.24 Before moving on to the next point, something must be said about the specific forms of the word in fifth-century written sources. Remarkably enough, its original occurrences are in the form of an adjective, not a noun: Pindar describes a at Isthmian 1.23, and Aeschylus talks of an at Seven against Thebes 466 and 717. This adjectival form will be preserved in Euripides (Heracl. 699, 800; Supp. 585; HF 190) and Aristophanes (Vesp. 359), both frequently referring to an anr hoplits (but also to other combinations). The substantive will appear for the first time around 430, first in Herodotus and contemporary inscriptions, and will be predominant in the later historians, but for a long time it will share the stage with the adjectival form.25 As a result, we can differentiate a periphrastic, poetic construction, employing hoplits as an adjective, and a nominal one (perhaps an abbreviation of the former), predominantly employed in prose. The periphrastic form will completely disappear by the end of the fifth century, and no occurrences will be found in Thucydides and Xenophon. Another crucial detail is that the noun will spread mainly in its plural form: only nine out of more than 200 occurrences of the noun in fifth-century authors are in the singular.26 This process fits nicely with the evolution I have previously described for the group hopl-, showing a turn toward a military meaning around 500. Archaic Warriors According to this analysis, the term hoplits is not to be found in the extant literary sources until the fifth century. The question then is how did the Greeks refer to the warriors armed with heavy equipment before then? To answer this question we must start with Homer. The analysis of Homeric terminology reveals that there are no technical terms to denote fighters in the epics, but a wide range of generic words referring to different qualities. Most
24.I refer to the following section for a detailed analysis of these points. 25. For detailed references, see Echeverra 2008, 157. 26.Eur. Heracl. 729; Andr. 458, 1123; Ar. Eq. 1369; Av. 402; Hdt. 5.111.2, 6.117.10; Thuc. 5.47.6.5, 5.49.1.8.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

297

of these words even lack a military meaning per se, and it must be inferred from the specific circumstances of the action. The most general terms are and /, denoting a multitude or mass; , , or can be used in the same manner. Terms expressing ethnic origin (Achaioi, Danaoi, Argives, Trojans, Lykioi, etc.) denote a military meaning at times, only circumstantially. Finally, the term can also be applied to the army, while denotes the infantry in contrast with the cavalry.27 Other epic terms can be more specifically connected with the notion of warrior, but they are again common words whose military meaning is incidental and depends on the context. This is the case with , which completely pervades the poems and can be often interpreted in a military sense.28 The context is crucial to render man as warrior, and hence some references can be doubtful, but in other cases the military meaning is much clearer: for example, in constructions such as (Il. 3.196) or (Il. 19.15859). The same applies to other terms like , , , and . At a more specific level we can list the several adjectives entailing the notion of enemy (, , ), which can be found either as nouns or adjectives. Speaking about the enemy in general terms is not uncommon, and it is sometimes the only way to refer to the fighting sides in the epics. Finally, although in a clear minority, some specifically military terms can be found, such as , , or , that are derived from the weapons employed. This is the situation in the epics. If we move forward into the Archaic period, we find an extremely similar scene: a wide range of generic terms whose connection with the military relies heavily on the context. We find the terms , , , and in the lyric poems,29 and new poetic designations appear, such as Mimnermus (frag. 9.3). The ethnics (Thracians, Carians, Naxians, Cimmerians, Treres, Messenians, Lydians) are also present. In all these cases, the ethnic is a metaphor for an army or a contingent, but the exact meaning relies almost completely on the context. More specific terms are , , and ; indefinite adjectives can be used in the lyric poems with a military sense, like Tyrtaeus (hereafter Tyrt.) or (frags. 19.14 and 19.16), and even adjectives referring to age groups (/, Tyrt. 10.1920, 22). But again the most common term is , the predominant way in poetry to refer to a warrior. More evident references to allies (), comrades (), and enemies can be found, and finally the group of specific terms connected with the equipment: is again the most common, but new terms referring to the

27. For a complete catalogue of references and texts of all these terms in Homer, see Echeverra 2008, 15859. The same will apply for the rest of the terms in the epics studied in the following paragraphs. 28. For the sake of the argument, I offer here a mere sample of the occurrences of anr with a military meaning in the first five books of the Iliad: 2.122, 131, 362, 368, 554, 611, 701, 768, 798, 805, 837; 3.49, 166, 167, 185, 196, 226, 241, 429; 4.86, 231, 250, 251, 273, 306, 445, 447, 457, 472, 492, 498, 519; 5.118, 166, 172, 244, 332, 456, 483, 488, 533, 541, 558, 641, 746, 779. The rest of the references can be found in Echeverra 2008, 159 n. 22. 29. For a complete catalogue of references and texts of all these (and the following) terms in the lyric poets, see Echeverra 2008, 160.

298

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

heavy (, )30 or light equipment (, Tyrt. 11.35), and the rare (Alcm. 1.1.5) and (Tyrt. 19.2) appear in this period, although they will immediately fade away. The result of this analysis reveals the lack of specific terms to denote the heavy-armed infantryman during the Archaic period, and the use of a wide range of indefinite words instead. Remarkably enough, becomes the most common term in Greek between the eighth and fifth centuries for that purpose,31 and thus it deserves further attention. As the evidence collected so far suggests, the term anr could by itself (and depending on the context) successfully denote the notion of a warrior or fighter. The sources show, however, that, in order to eliminate its natural ambiguity, the term could be constructed with an adjective, forming a periphrasis. This seems to be quite a common structure in Archaic literature.32 Apparently, the general and indefinite meaning of the term aner made it possible to fit it into different contexts, and the military field clearly was a frequent option: in Homer, a commander could be called (Il. 1.144), and a warrior resisting in combat was a (Il. 14.376). Friends could be designated as , and foes as , , and .33 The periphrasis with military content could be even more specific, and the constructions (Il. 3.49, 4.8687, 11.73839, 17.740), (Il. 4.457, 8.256, 16.603), (Il. 8.214), and many others were also possible.34 The case of (Il. 8.102) illustrates the fact that nouns other than aner could be the nucleus of the periphrasis. The same situation can be found in lyric poetry.35 This phenomenon sheds light on Aeschylus , later preserved in Euripides, Aristophanes, and Herodotus. The adjectival form in the first occurrences of the term hoplits seems now to fit an old literary tradition, using the noun anr in combination with different adjectives to denote different realities. In the military field, the wide range of possible periphrasis
30. These terms have been mentioned before to trace the semantic evolution of the group hopl-, representing two interesting examples of the presence of its military meaning during the Archaic period (see n. 16 above). They designate warriors with full (pan-) or sufficient (the prefix en- must be taken here to refer to the action of wearing or carrying) equipment (-oploi) in a way reminiscent of the original meaning of hoplits in the fifth century. In this sense, they attest the semantic range of the group hopl- in a certain period, but for the question of the pre-classical use of hoplits they seem to be rather irrelevant. 31. The tradition is still preserved, and in remarkably good health, in Aeschylus: Supp. 500, 528, 937; Pers. 60, 85, 235, 243, 915, 920, 927, 993; Sept. 42, 57, 114, 314, 324, 347, 397, 412, 432, 436, 466, 478, 502, 505 (x2), 509, 519, 544, 568, 644, 651, 717; Ag. 445, 642, 660, 804, 1627. 32.Examples taken from Homer include ethnics ( , Il. 2.701, 16.807; , Il. 3.167, 226; , Il. 2.611), jobs ( , Il. 2.474, 4.275; , Il. 11.86; , Il. 11.514), and qualities ( , Il. 11.654; , Il. 13.278; , Il. 16.600, 19.122, 23.112). A man is a (Il. 5.361, 604, 18.362, 19.22), while the common man can be (Il. 1.144, 2.553, 6.487, 521, 9.341, 10.204, 222, 341, 13.222, 14.484, 19.11) or, more emphatically, (Il. 2.198). 33. Hetairos anr: Il. 16.170, 17.466. Dios anr: Il. 9.317, 10.358, 12.57, 15.533, 17.148, 22.84, 24.684. Dysmens anr: Il. 5.488, 6.453, 10.40, 100, 221, 395, 13.263, 17.158, 19.168, 232, 24.288. Enantios anr: Il. 20.97. 34.See a detailed list with references in Echeverra 2008, 161. 35. The military content is provided by the context: (Callinus 1.18, herafter Callin.), (Callin. 4), (Tyrt. 10.22), (Tyrt. 12.16), (Mimnermus 17, hereafter Mimn.). In other cases it is much clearer: (Archil. 15), (Tyrt. 11.30), (Tyrt. 12.21), (Tyrt. 19.13), (Alc. 350.5).

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

299

proves the lack of specific terms in the Greek language to denote military realities.36 Thus, it is not unlikely that, when the military meaning became predominant in the semantic field of the group hopl- circa 500, a new adjective to refer generically to the fully-equipped warrior appeared. This adjective, originally similar to others in use, could be used in combination with substantives other than anr (such as Pindars , Isth. 1.23), and would finally predominate as a substantive to become the most common name of the standard Greek heavy-armed warrior of the Classical period. The Meaning of Hoplits According to this analysis, it can be argued then that the term hoplits simply did not exist in the Archaic period. This conclusion is based on the three complementary arguments explored above: first, its absence from the extant sources, as far as our present knowledge goes; second, the semantic evolution of the group hopl-, leading to the consolidation of the military meaning by the beginning of the fifth century; and third, the vocabulary of the warrior in the Archaic period, consisting in generic and non-technical terms expressing different qualities of the fighter (strength, multitude, equipment). The invention of hoplits fits the evolution of the vocabulary of the warrior as a new possibility in a time of experimentation: hoplits appears in fifth-century poetry as an adjective to introduce a variation in the military metaphor of poetic constructions with substantives like anr. At this point it is crucial to identify to which realities the Greek sources refer with the term hoplits in order to elucidate if they resemble the meanings given to it by modern scholarship. There are two complementary ways to approach this issue, the first one being to study the internal contexts of the texts, namely, the periods, historical or not, to which the term refers. For what it is worth, Greeks themselves did not consistently apply the term hoplits to realities in their past (as we do), but employed it to designate contemporary realities. This again points to the Classical period. To start with, the occurrences of the term in tragedy almost invariably refer to a mythological time; I am thus inclined to think that, rather than an indication of hoplites being part of the tradition, this reveals a tendency to describe myth in contemporary (and thus anachronistic) terms: to describe the hero Eteocles, for example, as an (Aesch. Sept. 717) is not a way to push hoplites into the legendary past, but to make that past more accessible and understandable for the contemporary audience. The remaining fifth-century cases, however, refer to historical periods in a remarkable pattern: only three occurrences can be unequivocally connected

36. Another proof of the strength of that tradition is the frequent periphrasis with anr that can be found in Aeschylus himself. If we pick out constructions with a military content, we can find (Pers. 243), (Pers. 375), (Sept. 42), (Sept. 114), (Sept. 432), (Sept. 509), (Ag. 1627), (Choe. 160), (Choe. 1072), and (Eum. 296). The constructions (Sept. 644) and (Choe. 627) must be emphasized, because they are perhaps the closest concepts to the in Sept. 466 and 717 as an armed warrior. They prove that it is not a casual or isolated expression.

300

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

with the Archaic period,37 while the overwhelming majority refer to contemporary events of the Classical period. Most of the occurrences in Herodotus are inscribed in the context of the Persian Wars, while Pindar (Isthm. 1.23), Aristophanes (Lys. 1143), and several occurrences in Thucydides correspond to events in the Pentecontaetia, like the Athenian attacks on the Megarid in 459 (Thuc. 1.106.2.2) or the battle of Koroneia I in 447 (Thuc. 1.113.1.4). Finally, the bulk of Thucydides and Aristophanes references (165 and six cases, respectively) and the different Attic inscriptions evoke contemporary events of the Peloponnesian War.38 The only three references to the Archaic period (Hdt. 3.120.3, 4.160.3; Thuc. 6.58.1) belong to contexts concentrated in the second half of the sixth century, but they are not likely to entail an intentional effort by Herodotus and Thucydides to identify hoplites in that specific time. Hoplites are not mentioned in other crucial campaigns of the period in which infantry troops are present, such as Cleomenes expeditions against Athens in 512508 (Hdt. 5.6465, 71, 7476) or the successful Athenian campaign against the Boeotians and Euboeans in 507/6 (Hdt. 5.77). Moreover, Herodotus and Thucyd ides vocabulary of infantry in events of the Archaic period is generic and unspecific: for example, the troops used by Cylon in his coup are a (Thuc. 1.126.5), and the Athenians who rushed to besiege the Acropolis against him were (Thuc. 1.126.7); the Argive and Spartan warriors in the Battle of Champions (c. 546) were (Hdt. 1.82.4); and the Argives defeated in the battle of Sepeia (c. 494) were simply (Hdt. 6.7779). These references are just a sample of a much longer list, and they are likely to suggest that both Herodotus and Thucydides (but especially the latter) kept a safe distance from the military realities of the past, realities they apparently did not feel too confident to describe in detail. There is indeed a considerable gap between their ambiguous way to describe Archaic infantry and their more detailed and technical descriptions of Classical hoplites. In this case, I think it is safer to regard Herodotus and Thucydides references to hoplitai in the Archaic period as anachronisms, since they described the past with the words and political concepts of their own time; without independent confirmation we cannot know whether such words and concepts were really used in the time described.39 The second way to approach the question of the meaning of hoplits is a semantic study (naturally cursory) of the catalogue of references. The semantic field of this term in Classical literary sources is, as far as our evidence suggests, made of a core meaning and two complementary (and sometimes overlapping) notions. The different meanings of hoplits in the sources are thus obtained from the combination in varying proportions of these elements, and their identification and differentiation rely mainly on the specific literary
37.Hdt. 4.160.13 mentions hoplites in a campaign of king Arkesilaos of Cyrene, c. 550; Hdt. 3.120.14 refers to the fifteen hoplites that supported Polykrates to establish his tyranny in Samos, c. 540; and Thuc. 6.58.1.3 situates hoplites in the Great Panathenaia the day Hipparchus is murdered, c. 514. All of them refer to the second half of the sixth century. 38. For a complete list of references and contexts, see Echeverra 2008, 163. 39.Raaflaub 2000, 251.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

301

context. Regarding the core meaning, the term takes it from its root hopl- as military equipment, implying a man with his gear of military tools, his weapons.40 The idea of equipment seems to be enough by itself to differentiate a heavy-armed infantryman from other types of combatants, but does not offer further information regarding the specific set of weapons he is wearing. Aeschylus is thus not necessarily a hoplite in the later sense, I think, but more properly an armed warrior. This basic meaning is characteristic in tragedy. The semantic core is supplemented with additional information (connotations), rendering it conceptually more complex and suitable for application to various fields. The additional information takes two complementary forms: technical military connotations and sociopolitical connotations. The evolution of these two forms during the Classical period seems to be, however, the opposite: hoplits gradually acquires a more technical military sense, while it simultaneously loses sociopolitical connotations. Let us examine these two processes more carefully. Regarding the first, a look at the catalogue of references suggests that from the original warrior in full equipment, the meaning of hoplits is gradually evolving toward a more technical heavy-armed infantryman, as opposed to other kinds of troops, especially in the historical works in prose and from Herodotus onward. In fifth-century epigraphy and in countless references in Herodotus and Thucydides41 the hoplite is systematically differentiated from other types of troops (archers, horsemen, slingers, light-armed). It thus belongs to a period in Greek history in which this differentiation becomes relevant, perhaps because armies are getting more complex and sophisticated. More interestingly, the fifth-century hoplite is often connected with the phalanx in the sources,42 suggesting the kind of warrior armed with shield and spear commonly described by modern scholarship. Naturally, I am not implying that there was an exclusive relationship between the hoplite and the phalanx.43 What I am describing here is the conceptual connection established between both realities from the fifth century onward. I suggest that the phalanx contributed to the consolidation of the Classical notion of hoplits, since the phalanx entails primarily the presence of hoplites: they seem to be

40.It, however, means just equipped or armed when constructed as an adjective with substantives that entail a non-human agent, like race ( , Pind. Isthm. 1.2123) or army ( , Eurip. Heracl. 800801). 41.Epigraphy: IG I3.1.138.12, IG I3.1.60.1418, IG I3.1.83.2224. Herodotus: 7.158.4, 7.173.2, 7.202, 9.17.2, 9.28.3, 9.29.1, 9.30. Thucydides (sample from the first two books): 1.49.1, 1.60, 1.106, 2.13.68, 2.22.2, 2.31.2, 2.56.2, 2.79, 2.80.45. 42.I will benefit here from the notion of phalanx I will develop in the next section. According to it, it is possible to find hoplites connected to phalanxes in the main battles of the fifth and fourth centuries: Marathon (Hdt. 6.11117), Plataea (Hdt. 9.5975), Potidaia (Thuc. 1.6263), Olpai (Thuc. 3.107108), Solygeia (Thuc. 4.4245), Delium (Thuc. 4.88101), Amphipolis (Thuc. 5.612), Mantineia I (Thuc. 5.6374), Syracuse I (Thuc. 6.6271), Nemea (Xen. Hell. 4.2.923), Koronea II (Xen. Hell. 4.3.1719), Olynthus I (Xen. Hell. 5.2.4043) and II (Xen. Hell. 5.3.36), Thespiae (Xen. Hell. 5.4.4246), Leuktra (Xen. Hell. 6.4.815), and Mantineia II (Xen. Hell. 7.5.1827). 43. As modern scholarship frequently does: see, among many others, Lorimer 1947, 128; 1950, 462; Andrewes 1974, 32; Mitchell 1996, 89; Schwartz 2002, 40.

302

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

the main component of the phalanx,44 while the reverse does not necessarily follow: hoplites, as has been convincingly shown, performed many other military duties beyond the phalanx in Classical warfare.45 Regarding the second semantic process, hoplits seems in certain contexts to contain some social and political connotations involving prestige and status: a hoplite could also be a citizen-soldier, a fully integrated adult male with political rights and distinctively separated from other groups in the city.46 These status connotations pervade the references to hoplits in tragedy, and this fact, combined with the use of the periphrastic form, recalls the poetic tradition to designate heavy-armed infantrymen as status warriors. The term hoplite, hence, seems to be the last example (and for some time just one among many others) of a long tradition of literary solutions to the trouble of designating the figure of the warrior. This semantic argument (connecting hoplits to a literary tradition coming from the Archaic period) suggests that the status connotations could be part of the original meaning of the term when it was invented. In fact, these connotations can be found in the very first occurrences of the term: Pindar describes in Isthmian 1.23 an athletic event, characteristically connected with aristocratic practices, while Aeschylus (Sept. 466, 717) refers to mythological heroes, commonly portrayed as status warriors in the tragedy, a tradition preserved four decades later in Euripides (Heracl. 694, 699, and 729). The status connotations recur in later literature: at 9.29.3, Herodotus contrasts the Spartan citizens at Plataea (whom he calls hoplites) with the rest of the Lacedaemonian forces (perioikoi and helots); Aristophanes describes Lysistratas complaint for the fate of the Athenian women, forced to send their sons to serve the city as hoplites (Lys. 590), and he later refers to the hoplites sent with Kimon in 464, generally regarded by modern scholars as full Athenian citizens (Lys. 1143). Thucydides preserves the pattern, at times slightly more superficially: he designates Athenian citizens as hoplites in the course of the Peloponnesian War, for example, the men from the deme of Acharnae in 2.20.4.4, or the citizens at the Peiraeus during the events of 411 (8.92.4.3, 8.92.9.3, 8.92.10.1, 8.92.10.6, 8.93.1.3, 8.93.3.2, 8.94.1.4), who are depicted at some point gathered in assembly (8.92.6.1). Citizen troops are differentiated from other contingents, especially metics, with this term (Thuc. 2.13.6.1, 2.13.7.3, 2.31.2.3), and during the Plague, the casualties among the citizen body are referred to as hoplites (Thuc. 3.87.3.1). Kleons troops at Amphipolis were exclusively made up of citizens (Thuc. 5.8.2.5), and from other passages we know that there were only Athenian and allied hoplites in that campaign. Finally, Thucydides refers to the hoplites from the list ( ) at

44. For a recent discussion arguing that light-armed troops could fight mixed with the hoplites in the phalanx, see Hunt 1997 and van Wees 1995, 164 and 2004, 69. 45.See Rawlings 2000. 46.Modern scholars have also adopted this meaning, and commonly use the term hoplite to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, as in the expression hoplite class (e.g., in Snodgrass 1965a, 115 or Cartledge 1977, 27, among many others).

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

303

least four times (6.43.1.9, 7.20.2.3, 7.31.5.7, 8.24.3.1), as does Aristophanes (Eq. 1369; Lys. 394). The evolution of this status notion, however, seems to lead to its gradual (but never total) abandonment in the sources: although preserved in the following decades, this notion will become secondary against the more technical, plainly military one we have just described. The references with status connotations become proportionally a minority in Thucydides, and will remain secondary in Xenophon and fourth-century literature, but will always be at hand to be invoked when necessary.47 As a result, the two semantic phenomena affecting the basic meaning of hoplits (the gradual acquisition of a technical sense, and the gradual loss of the sociopolitical connotations) seem to be to some extent complementary and develop simultaneously during the fifth century. They, in fact, represent the two sides of a single coin: the gradual development of technical vocabulary in the military field. A crucial factor involved in the process, marking a decisive turning point, will be the generalization of the nominal form in the historical prose of the late fifth century. Both the development of the technical meaning of hoplits and the gradual loss of its status connotations seem to be connected with the introduction and spread of hoplits as a substantive. This entails that what was originally a description or categorization (a man with certain qualities) has turned into a proper agent (a specific kind of armed man).48 The pervivence of a reference to hoplits as an adjective in Herodotus (6.117.3), and the presence of the substantive in the later works of Euripides and Aristophanes,49 both account for the difficult transition from one meaning to the other, and bear witness to the coexistence of different applications of the term. If this analysis is sound, the semantic evolution of hoplits then points as well to the Classical period: first, Classical Greek sources (especially sources in prose) seem to refer consistently to contemporary realities, and second, the meaning of the term evolves in diverse semantic processes that develop during the Classical period. That looks too consistent to be coincidental. 3. The Phalanx The word presents the opposite situation to hoplits: found in Homer with extraordinary regularity, it would be preserved through the Archaic period until Classical times. Apparently, its original meaning referred to a long and solid segment of any material,50 offering thus a natural ground for its later military meaning. It is doubtful, however, to what extent the Homeric and Archaic phalanges physically reproduced the metaphor of the elongated
47.We have listed roughly eighteen possible ocurrences of the term with status connotations in Thucydides, but they must be put against the total 180, a mere 10 percent. In Xenophon they are even harder to find, perhaps some eight references against the total 186 (Hell. 2.4.9.2, 2.4.10.9, 5.4.9.3, 5.4.9.5, 7.2.20.2, 7.2.20.6; Mem. 3.5.19; see also [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 1.2.7). 48.I have already described the moment in which hoplits appears as a substantive, in Herodotus and contemporary epigraphy. See above, p. 296, and n. 26 for references. 49.Euripides: Heracl. 694, 729; Andr. 458, 760, 1123; Phoen. 1096, 1191. Aristophanes: Eq. 1369; Av.402, 448; Lys. 394, 590, 1143. 50.Latacz 1977, 53; Singor 1991, 2627.

304

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

segment characteristic of the tactical formation of Classical times. As a result, we need to review the extant sources from Homer onward in order, first, to look for similarities between the Archaic phalanges and the Classical phalanx, and second, to check whether the term is actually used to designate closed formations before the fifth century. For that purpose, we first need to determine what exactly was a phalanx, how it was described, and how it operated tactically on the field. The first unequivocal (and quintessential) depiction of a Classical phalanx appeared in early fourth-century literature. For this reason (and because he was the first to use the term phalanx to designate that specific infantry formation), we must now turn to Xenophon. The Phalanx in Xenophon The fourth century begins with the recovery of a term from poetic tradition: phalanx appears sixty times in Xenophons works to denote the dense formation of Greek heavy infantry. He will certainly create an entirely new concept from scratch, pouring new wine (the fourth-century tactical formation) into an old flask (the old term phalanx from the poetic tradition). In order to approach this new tactical reality in Xenophons narrative, we need to pay attention to at least three fields: first, the forms and uses of the term phalanx in Xenophons works; second, the vocabulary connected with the deployment and organization of infantry formations; third, the narrative descriptions of the characteristics and qualities of the phalanx. Let us examine these arguments in detail. Broadly speaking, the term phalanx designates in Xenophon the body of Greek heavy-armed infantrymen deployed in lines that usually takes the center of the battlefield and plays the most relevant role in combat. The term appears in the accounts of the main battles of the period designating the Greek heavy infantry formation,51 but it is also employed marginally in other uses, referring to cavalry, and even to the Persians,52 which entails that it is not a technical term yet.53 Xenophon recognizes the phalanx as the most common tactical formation, using the term to express the very idea of drawing up the army in battle order ( , An. 4.6.6.4; cf. 4.3.26.5). A crucial feature, however, is that Xenophons phalanx
51. Counaxa (Xen. An. 1.8.17.4, 1.8.18.2), Nemea (Xen. Hell. 4.2.13.4, 4.2.18.8), Koronea II (Xen. Hell. 4.3.17.5, 4.3.18.5, 4.3.20.3), Acharnania (Xen. Hell. 4.6.9.1), Olynthus I (Xen. Hell. 5.2.40.4) and II (Xen. Hell. 5.3.6.4), Thespiae (Xen. Hell. 5.4.42.6), Corcyra (Xen. Hell. 6.2.21.2), Leuktra (Xen. Hell . 6.4.10.3, 6.4.12.2), and Mantineia II (Xen. Hell. 7.5.22.2, 7.5.23.7, 7.5.25.3). 52. There are many occurrences of the term applied to Persian troops in the Cyropaedia (see Echeverra 2008, 170 n. 47 for a full list) but, given the fact that Xenophon is reconstructing here the life of a Persian king more than 150 years earlier in an account full of literary conventions, it seems unlikely that he is using the term in any technical sense, but probably trying to make his descriptions of Persian life understandable for a Greek audience. This argument could also be applied to the occurrences in the Anabasis. Cf. Raaflaub 2000, 251. 53. Greek cavalry units (Xen. Hell. 3.4.13.10, 7.5.23.7) and fleets (Xen. Hell. 6.2.30.3) can be deployed like a phalanx ( ). Persian units can also be designated with this term: Xen. An . 1.10.10.2, 4.8.12.5, 4.8.16.4, 4.8.17.3, 6.5.7.5. These testimonies show that Xenophon is not absolutely consistent when applying the term to different realities, although he is fairly coherent when dealing with Greek infantry. It is likely that he created the concept to designate the Greek heavy infantry and then applied it to other military realities.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

305

is invariably one: the historian consistently presents the term in its singular form,54 implying a single, coherent, and unitary formation (although likely to be separated into contingents, sectors, and other subunits with some freedom of action). For the first time in Greek literature, the phalanx, even resulting from the combination of minor parts, is conceived as a tactical unit. This singularity is emphasized by the related vocabulary: the phalanx is described in Xenophons narrative as deep (, Hell. 2.4.34.7, 4.2.13.4, 4.2.18.7; Lac. 11.6.6), dense (, An. 2.3.3.2), or solid (, Ages. 6.4.6), clearly emphasizing cohesion. It can perform different actions: it can be made (, Hell. 4.2.13.4, 4.2.18.7, 6.5.19.1), led (, Hell. 3.4.23.5; Ages. 1.31.5, 2.11.10), and turned (, Hell. 4.3.18.5; Ages. 2.11.10; Lac. 11.9.6); it can also spread itself (, Hell. 5.2.40.5; , Hell. 7.5.22.2), break through (, An. 1.8.18.2), scatter (, Hell. 5.4.42.6), turn round (, Hell. 6.2.21.2, 6.5.18.7), and even flee (, Hell. 7.5.25.3). Finally, the soldiers can run from it (, Hell. 4.3.17.4; Ages. 2.10.5), leave it to pursue their enemies (, Hell. 4.6.9.1), and move in front of it (, An. 2.1.6.4). All these actions emphasize the idea of the phalanx as a unit. Regarding the second argument, Xenophon employs many other ways, besides the term phalanx itself, to denote the formation of Greek heavy infantry. The most important of these is the use of the verb and related words (with the noun and their many compounds) to refer to the organization and deployment of troops on the battlefield. Tass (and its compounds , , and the several forms with anti-) is the most common verb in Greek to denote the action of drawing up troops in battle order. It in fact appears in most of Xenophons accounts of battles,55 and its role is so crucial that Xenophon refers to the Greek infantrymen as (Hell. 3.3.7.3; An. 4.2.21.3, 4.3.5.1) or (An. 4.6.25.3, 4.8.3.3, 5.2.13.3), and to the contingents as (Hell. 5.2.20.6). The noun taxis, on the other hand, can refer to a number of different tactical realities depending on the context: in its most general sense, it can designate a contingent of the army, a unit of the phalanx most likely under the direct command of an officer of its own;56 then, taxis can designate the battle array

54.Specifically, fifty-six occurrences in the singular and only five in the plural. For the complete list of references, see Echeverra (2008, 169 n. 46). The singularity of the phalanx is emphasized even in those few passages where the plural form is preferred: at Counaxa (Xen. An. 1.8.17.4), the dual form clearly implies that there are two phalanxes, one on each side, and the same happens in Xen. Ages. 2.9.6 and Xen. Eq. mag. 8.23.1. The plural at Nemea (Xen. Hell. 4.2.13.4), however, seems to refer to the phalanxes of every allied city taking part in the battle, that is, one phalanx for each city. This is an intriguing use of the term that recalls its traditional, poetic use, as we shall see. 55. Peiraeus I (Xen. Hell. 2.4.11.5, 2.4.12.1, 2.4.12.3, 2.4.15.3) and II (Xen. Hell. 2.4.34.2, 2.4.34.6), Counaxa (Xen. An. 1.8.14.3), Nemea (Xen. Hell. 4.2.18.5, 4.2.19.5 (x2), 4.2.21.4), Koronea II (Xen. Hell. 4.3.15.1), Lechaion I (Xen. Hell. 4.4.9.3, 4.4.9.8, 4.4.9.11) and II (Xen. Hell. 4.5.14.1), Acharnania (Xen. Hell. 4.6.11.4), Olynthos I (Xen. Hell. 5.2.41.2), Corcyra (Xen. Hell. 6.2.20.2, 6.2.21.1), Olympia (Xen. Hell. 7.4.29.8, 7.4.30.2), and Mantineia II (Xen. Hell. 7.5.21.3, 7.5.21.5, 7.5.22.11, 7.5.23.7). For other uses of tass in combat, see Echeverra 2008, 170 n. 48. 56. For a full list of references, see Echeverra 2008, 171 n. 50. We can also find a (Xen. An. 4.7.2.5), which in its context refers to a unit at the forefront of the attack. I will later compare this meaning with the use given to the same expression by Thucydides.

306

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

in its broadest sense, the battle order or formation;57 again, it can imprecisely contain the idea of position, referring either to the spatial position of a man in his unit or to the situation of the unit on the battlefield (Hell. 7.5.22.10; An. 1.8.4.1, 4.3.29.7); finally, it has also been intepreted as rank or file, as if designating each line of the phalanx.58 There are, however, two problems with the group tass-taxis. First, it semantically entails the idea of order, which in a military context usually involves a tactical formation, but the term itself gives no hint of the specific nature and characteristics of that formation. And second, it is again not technical vocabulary for Greek infantry, but can be marginally applied to other military realities.59 Xenophons tactical vocabulary, therefore, seems to present some imprecisions, even to the point of resorting to other expressions like preparing for battle to denote the action of deploying an army.60 The main problem lies in the idea of order, as it seems difficult to be described precisely,61 and we need to resort to complementary ways to figure it out: for example, the several references to the rupture of the battle order.62 If a phalanx can be broken or penetrated, then we can infer a certain degree of previous cohesion, a certain unitary disposition, for these actions to be possible. The third line of analysis (to study the narrative descriptions of the characteristics and qualities of the phalanx) can shed some further light on the issue. Xenophon regularly describes the battle order, referring to three main aspects: its longitudinal disposition in a wide front, its depth, and its density. Starting with the first, we have some indirect evidence of the existence of a wide longitudinal front in the frequent references to the wings () of the phalanx, which represent a visual metaphor: the army is made to extend from side to side in a wide and shallow front, and hence the distinction between a right () and a left () flank,63 both usually behaving independently of one another, and even the occasional mention of a center (, Hell. 2.4.13.1; An. 1.2.17.2, 1.8.6.1). The idea of the wide front finds further support in the several references to contingents deployed in consecu57. This is probably the most common use in Xenophon, implying a higher level of order. For a full list of references, see Echeverra 2008, 171 nn. 51 and 52. In the same situation we find (Xen. Hell. 5.2.37.4, 7.5.22.5). 58.Some possible cases: Xen. Hell. 6.5.30.4, 7.5.22.10; An. 1.8.8.5, 1.8.16.1. This meaning is quite unlikely though: the idea of the first rank cannot be justified by the context, and in all these cases it is better to interpret the term as contingents. The notion of rank is so specific, providing additional tactical information, that it needs further support besides the presence of the term taxis. 59. Tass can refer to the marching order of infantry, to the battle array of cavalry and fleets, and even to Persian infantry and cavalry. Taxis in turn can refer to contingents of peltatst and Greek and Persian cavalry, to the battle order of fleets and Greek and Persian cavalry, and to the position of Persian cavalry on the field. See the catalogue of references in Echeverra 2008, 17071 and n. 49. Remarkably enough, taxis can be used as well to express the social position or status of a man (Xen. Hell. 1.1.28.8). 60. (Xen. Hell. 4.2.18.6), (Xen. Hell. 4.2.19.4), (Xen. Hell. 7.5.21.4). 61. This is exactly the case with the terms / and / applied to the battle order in Xenophon (see a full list of references in Echeverra 2008, 172 n. 55). It is impossible to infer the exact nature or characteristics of the formation from them, beyond the fact that it is ordered (eutakts) or not (atakts). 62. The phalanx can be cut or split (, Xen. Hell. 4.3.18.4, 7.5.23.2; Ages. 2.11.8; An. 1.8.10.4, 4.8.11.4), and enemy troops can break through it (, Xen. Hell. 4.3.19.3, 4.3.19.7; Ages. 2.11.11). 63. For a full list of references about kerata, see Echeverra 2008, 172 and nn. 5758.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

307

tive order, one close to another, and usually listed in Xenophons accounts from side to side.64 The presence of kerata, however, in the Persian infantry formation (Hell. 3.2.16.1; An. 1.8.9.2, 1.8.13.4, 1.8.23.2, 1.9.31.4, 4.8.12.4) and in Greek fleets (Hell. 1.6.29.3, 1.6.30.1, 1.6.31.5, 1.6.33.5), the mention of the center of the Persian infantry (An. 1.8.12.3, 1.8.13.2, 1.8.13.4, 1.8.21.6, 1.8.22.2, 1.8.23.1), and the description of the consecutive order of the Persian contingents at Counaxa (An. 1.8.910) all imply that they are not technical terms for the Greek infantry, either. The second aspectdepthcan be described through different elements. To begin with, Xenophon seems at times to differentiate an area at the front of the formation ( , Hell. 2.4.15.3; , Hell. 2.4.16.2; , Hell. 3.5.20.4, 4.2.22.4); this must be understood in a general sense of combatants at the front.65 Besides, Xenophon uses these terms to designate peltasts (Hell. 5.4.44.5) and Persians (Cyr. 6.3.24.2). More explicit reference to depth can be found in the presence of the term (Hell. 2.4.11.8, 2.4.12.2, 6.4.12.4, 7.5.24.1), and in the several testimonies of the number of ranks or shields, recurrent in Xenophons narrative.66 These testimonies are crucial because, for the first time, they offer accurate details for visualizing the phalanx: the shields or ranks allow us to draw the rectangle of the phalanx with great precision. Again, depth is not an exclusive element of the Greek phalanx. Xenophon refers to the depth of Persian cavalry (Hell. 3.4.13.12), while the Greek cavalry can deploy four or six deep (Hell. 3.4.13.10, 7.5.24.1), and the Greek fleets can form a single line (Hell. 1.6.29.6, 1.6.29.8, 1.6.31.4). Finally, density: formations can be labeled as dense (, Hell. 4.4.11.10, 6.2.21.1, 6.2.22.4, 6.4.10.1), but apparently density does not exclude the existence of disorder (as in Hell. 4.4.11.10), and the verb can also be applied to Greek cavalry (Hell. 5.4.44.3) and Persian infantry (An. 1.10.5.5). Most of the time, it preserves a general meaning (to gather or to collect). To sum up, the literary concept of the phalanx to refer to the Greek tactical unit of heavy infantry can be regarded as a creation of Xenophon: he gives it its name, and he accurately describes its nature and characteristics. Xenophon explicitly identifies a phalanx, described as a cohesive compound of assembled contingents, in most of the greatest battles of his period. He also collects a basic tactical vocabulary, still tentative and not exclusive of the phalanx, emphasizing roughly the idea of order in its most general form and thus suitable to be applied to different military realities. He describes
64. For example, in the battles of Counaxa (Xen. An. 1.8.47), Nemea (Xen. Hell. 4.2.1617), Koronea II (Xen. Hell. 4.3.1516; Ages. 2.911), and Lechaion I (Xen. Hell. 4.4.9). 65. And certainly not as a first rank of the phalanx. Being first does not necessarily imply being in order: for example, Xenophon mentions prtoi at Hell. 5.1.12.4, but explicitly points out that they are fighting without any order ( ). 66.Fifty shields: Xen. Hell. 2.4.11.8, 6.4.12.5. Sixteen shields: Xen. Hell. 4.2.18.7. Twelve shields: Xen. Hell. 6.4.12.4. Ten shields: Xen. Hell. 2.4.12.2, 6.5.19.4. Eight shields: Xen. Hell. 2.4.34.3, 3.2.16.3, 6.2.21.1; An. 7.1.23.3. Four shields: Xen. An. 1.2.15.3. Really deep phalanx: Xen. Hell. 4.2.18.78 ( ). It is also possible to make the phalanx deeper (, Xen. Hell. 6.5.19.1, 7.5.22.7), or even to double its depth (, Xen. Hell. 6.5.19.2).

308

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

the phalanx as a wide longitudinal front with clearly differentiated sections (wings and center), and with a variable depth in homogeneous ranks. This disposition in a grid pattern, in which the infantrymen are posted in regular files and columns, is probably the main feature of the extremely shallow rectagle that constitutes the essence of the Classical phalanx. The concept, however, is still young and shows traces of evolution: accurately used when describing the Greek heavy infantry, it still displays some margin for ambiguity. This allows the historian to transfer the image of a phalanx (an ordered rectangle of ranks and files, with a fixed width and depth and a certain density) to other realities like cavalry, fleets, and even Persians, without shocking his audience. To a great extent, the phalanx is still a metaphor of an ordered formation, an abstract scheme of a tactical disposition, and it can be transferred to different situations and contexts. Xenophons phalanx represents the Classical phalanx of the fourth century. We now need to go back to the fifth century to unveil the tactical formations of the period. Battle Formations in the Fifth Century An overview of fifth-century Greek literature offers the first and most striking result: the term phalanx does not appear in any literary source of the period. Although the fifth century is the time of some of the greatest infantry battles in Greek history, from Marathon to Peiraeus, a concept to denote the Greek battle array is apparently absent. As remarkable as this fact is, it seems to have been overlooked by modern scholarship. This seems to point at Xenophon as its creator, and gives a new dimension to the sixty occurrences of the term in his works: despite seeming like a fairly low number of references, they must be considered against the absolute vacuum of the previous century. As a result, we need to resort to other ways to reconstruct the tactical formations of the period, namely to the second and third steps of our methodological approach to Xenophons phalanx: the vocabulary connected with the deployment and organization of infantry formations, and the narrative descriptions of the characteristics and qualities of the phalanx. This analysis will allow us to compare the tactical formations in the fifth century with the phalanx in Xenophons time. Starting with the analysis of the vocabulary, the most common way to denote the tactical disposition of an army in fifth-century literary sources is again the verb , the noun , and their multiple compounds. The group semantically implies that troops are deployed in some kind of tactical order on the battlefield, and thus contingents can be called (Thuc. 4.96.3.4, 5.72.4.6) or (Thuc. 5.72.3.7). It is extremely frequent in fifth-century literature, and appears in the accounts of the main battles of the period.67 The noun taxis preserves this general and unspecific
67.Marathon (Hdt. 6.111.1, 6.111.6, 6.111.11, 6.112.1, 6.113.3), Citheron (Hdt. 9.21.1), Plataea (Hdt. 9.27.35, 9.28.5, 9.28.910, 9.28.18, 9.28.27, 9.28.28, 9.28.30, 9.29.2, 9.31.2, 9.31.6, 9.46.6, 9.48.12, 9.49.11, 9.54.4, 9.61.3, 9.69.2), Mycale (Hdt. 9.99.4, 9.102.2, 9.102.4, 9.102.16), Olpai (Thuc. 3.107.4.4, 3.107.4.6), Sphacteria (Thuc. 4.32.3.2, 4.33.1.4), Solygeia (Thuc. 4.43.3.2), Delium (Thuc. 4.93.3.4, 4.93.4.6, 4.94.1.2), Mantineia (Thuc. 5.66.1.2, 5.67.2.2, 5.68.3.5), Anapus River (Thuc. 6.67.1.2, 6.67.1.5, 6.67.1.6, 6.67.2.1,

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

309

sense of order, and its meaning varies according to the context, as happened in Xenophon: it can mean contingent, sometimes identified with the Athenian tribal units; formation in a broad sense, referring to the battle array; position, in a specific (a man in his unit) or a general (a unit on the battlefield) sense; and finally rank, although the context is not always clear enough to be certain.68 The indefiniteness of the idea of order allows the group tass-taxis, hardly a technical term for military deployments, to be used in contexts other than Greek heavy infantry formations: it can refer to the Persians, especially in Herodotus narrative, and also to fleets.69 The notion of ordered formation is also implied in other verbs as well, such as (Hdt. 6.77.4), (Hdt. 7.212.7), and (Hdt. 9.98.10), while (Hdt. 9.28.13, 14, 16, 21, 22, 25, 9.46.5, 9.48.1) and (Thuc. 1.62.5.2, 2.79.3.1, 4.33.1.6, 4.93.2.34, 4.93.3.2, 4.94.2.1, 5.66.2.34, 5.67.1.1, 5.67.1.5, 5.68.3.7, 6.69.1.6), despite greater frequency, are a bit more obscure in terms of tactical information. This lack of technical vocabulary to describe the nature of the Greek tactical formation prompts the need for other, more linguistically complex, solutions, like periphrasis: armies can prepare for battle ( , Thuc. 1.62.5.2; cf. 6.67.1.2), deploy for battle ( , Thuc. 3.107.3.4; cf. 2.20.1.3, 5.65.1.2, 7.81.4.5), stand for battle ( , Thuc. 2.79.3.1), and even deploy in position ( , Thuc. 4.93.2.34; cf. 4.94.2.1) or deploy in order ( , Thuc. 5.66.2.34). These expressions seem to be the only available resort for Greek authors when the historical account demands more precision and accuracy in tactical details than the extant vocabulary is ready to provide. The use of is particularly significant in this respect: already present in the epics,70 the term emphasizes the idea of order, although without any further clarification. In the fifth century it can be used as well in its negative form, implying the lack of order (, Hdt. 7.220.25), and parallels similar negative forms of taxis (, Thuc. 2.92.1.4, 5.10.6.6, 6.72.3.2, 7.43.7.2; cf. 6.53.2.2, 6.97.4.1). Order can be emphasized as well through references to the disintegration of the line (as shown above in the case of Xenophon). Fifth-century literature, however, prefers the verb (Soph. Aj. 775; Hdt. 6.113.4, 6.113.7; Thuc. 4.96.6.23, 6.70.2.3), which had a long tradition in that sense.71

6.67.2.6, 6.70.4.2). Other occurrences: Hdt. 5.102.8, 5.109.5, 5.109.14, 5.110.2, 5.110.3, 5.110.5; Thuc. 6.102.1.3, 7.6.2.3. 68. For a full list of references, see Echeverra 2008, 17576, nn. 6770. 69. Tass: applied to individual warriors (Aesch. Sept. 408, 527, 570, 621), to Persians (Hdt. 1.80.14, 3.155.24, 3.155.31, 7.218.11, 9.32.2, 9.33.1), to Lydians (Hdt. 1.80.7), to Scythians (Hdt. 4.134.12, 4.134.3), to the Persian fleet (Aesch. Pers. 366), and to the Greek fleet (Aesch. Pers. 381; Hdt. 6.8.2; Th. 2.90.1.4). Taxis: applied to the position or the ranks of the Persian troops (Aesch. Pers. 298; Hdt. 9.31.8, respectively), and to the battle array and files of rowers of fleets (Hdt. 6.14.8; Aesch. Pers. 380, respectively). These references are just a sample; for a full list, see Echeverra 2008, 17576 and nn. 6566. 70. Kosme: Hom. Il. 2.476, 554, 655, 704, 727, 806, 3.1, 11.51, 12.87, 14.379, 388. Several heroes are even labelled as organizers of the troops ( , Hom. Il. 1.16, 375, 3.236). 71.It can be found in Homer: Il. 6.6, 7.141, 11.90, 13.718, 15.408. Military uses of this verb almost disappear during the Archaic period, and only Stesichorus shows an isolated exception (frag. S88 col. 1.21).

310

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

If we move on to the second aspect (the narrative descriptions of the characteristics and qualities of the phalanx), we find again a picture very similar to Xenophons, with literary accounts emphasizing three elements: the creation of a wide longitudinal front, depth, and density. Regarding the first, fifth-century sources provide different clues: the extraordinarily frequent references to the wings () of armies is certainly the main one, differentiating not only a right and left flank (sometimes separated by hundreds of meters), but also a center.72 The listing of successive contingents in order, side by side, from one wing to the other, plays again the same role, emphasizing the disposition of troops following a horizontal axis.73 Regarding depth, several possibilities are at hand: at least in two cases, Thucydides distinguishes a first line ( , 5.68.3.45; , 5.68.3.8). Naturally, this does not provide sufficient ground to identify a phalanx (the mass can be crowded in disorder behind this first rank), but in other cases Thucydides refers explicitly to the depth (, 5.68.3.5) of a certain formation. This technique is usually complemented with the specification of shields or ranks in the phalanx, to a great narrative effect.74 As happened in Xenophons account, descriptions are at this point detailed enough to visualize the formation, the rectangle of the phalanx, with its soldiers posted in ordered ranks and files and not at random. Finally, density seems more difficult to describe with any accuracy: troops can be described as grouped or dense (, Hdt. 6.112.9; Thuc. 6.70.3.4, 6.70.4.1), and the old Homeric adjective / is also recovered (Hdt. 9.18.5; Thuc. 5.71.1.8). The formation can even be referred to as a , a shutting up of the lines (Thuc. 5.71.1.8), and the verb is used in moments of great danger, such as the Spartan last stand at Sphacteria (Thuc. 4.35.1.23; cf. 5.72.1.7, 5.72.3.5). The result of this analysis of fifth-century sources shows a remarkably similar situation to that described for Xenophon: the vocabulary is neither detailed nor technical (it barely transmits the idea of order), it lacks a specific tactical meaning, and can be marginally used for other military realities; there is a tendency to use tass and taxis in their different meanings (depending on the context); order is emphasized through auxiliary terms and periphrasis (like kosmos), and can be inferred from the idea of breaking up the line; the Greek formation is presented as a wide longitudinal front through references to the flanks and the listing of the consecutive contingents; depth is depicted in a fairly accurate way through the specification of shields and the attempts to differentiate a first line; density and cohesion are duly emphasized as well. The only element missing is the term phalanx. Therefore, fifth-century sources seem to be describing a phalanx (much in the same way as Xenophon will do some decades later), but without calling it by its name.
72. For a full list of references, see Echeverra 2008, 178 nn. 7781. Again this term can be applied for other uses, like fleets (Aesch. Pers. 399; Hdt. 6.8.4, 8.76.5, 8.85.2; Thuc. 8.104.2.2). 73.Hdt. 6.111.57, 9.28, 9.102; Thuc. 4.93.4.14, 5.67, 6.67.1. Thucydides even differentiates the first contingent from the wing ( , 6.101.6.1). 74. Twenty-four shields: Thuc. 4.93.4.6. Sixteen shields: Thuc. 6.67.2.2. Eight shields: Thuc. 4.94.1.1, 5.68.3.7, 6.67.1.5, 6.67.1.6.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

311

Thucydides plays a crucial role in the evolution of the literary notion of the phalanx. The term, inherited from poetic tradition, was to be re-elaborated at the beginning of the fourth century, but the tactical reality it was bound to designate, still experiencing a process of gradual consolidation, was already there in the late fifth century for Thucydides to describe. In contrast, the Greek battle order is not so accurately depicted in Herodotus (only a generation before Thucydides), although some key elements (like the deployment in a wide longitudinal front) are already present in his accounts. Thus we can detect an evolution in the concept of the phalanx and in the description of military events, leading toward a gradual specialization of vocabulary. Thucydides clearly displayed an interest in offering more accurate details of the military events he described (an interest not so evident in Herodotus), a consequence of which was an effort to use a more technical vocabulary. Xenophon followed Thucydides lead in the treatment of military descriptions and vocabulary, assuming his narrative techniques, but introduced slight variations and gave a crucial step further with the reinvention of the concept of phalanx. With the consolidation of the figure of the historian, military vocabulary and descriptions gradually became more accurate, specialized, and technical. According to this premise, if we proceed in the opposite direction back into the Archaic period, military descriptions should be more and more imprecise: the further we get into the past, the less accurate and detailed military terminology we should expect to find. The Phalanx in the Archaic Literary Sources The Archaic period is the realm of poetry, and poetic language entails different choices regarding vocabulary and narrative, a caveat that needs to be taken into account when dealing with military descriptions in the Archaic sources. Let us begin with Homer. The term phalanx is already present in the epics, but, despite the repeated attention it has received in modern scholarship,75 only 34 occurrences can be found in Homer. Significantly enough, only one case is in the singular form, while the rest present the plural :76 the epics, we can infer, consistently describe multiple units, not a single formation. The plural also implies that these separated contingents, although distinguishable from one another, perform the same activity, acting in unison. The question arises how autonomous these phalanxes are in actual combat. Do they really act simultaneously? Homeric phalanges are presented performing actions (that is, as subject) at least twelve times,77 and the specific actions are revealing. First, they can simply stay or stand in front of the enemy (, Il. 2.558, 13.126), but most of the time they seem to be extremely mobile, moving forward (, Il. 4.281, 332, 427), following the leaders through the battlefield (,
75. For example, Latacz 1977; Pritchett 1985; Singor 1991; van Wees 1986, 1988, 1994a, 1994b, and 1997. 76.Singor notices this fact, but recognizes that there are no etymological arguments to explain it (1991, 27). See the complete list of references in Echeverra 2008, 165 nn. 4142. 77.Hom. Il. 2.558, 4.281, 332, 427, 5.93, 591, 11.148, 344, 13.126, 15.448, 16.280, 19.158.

312

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

Il. 5.591, 11.344), or even gathering or meeting together (, Il. 19.158). These actions are generally collective, performed by the phalanxes in unison, but the fact that they can also push or shove one another (, Il. 5.93, 11.148, 15.448) proves that, even performing the same activity, the phalanxes can move independently as well. Finally, they can also suffer emotions and thus be moved by the surrounding events (, Il. 16.280). In contrast, epic phalanges are presented as the object of actions twenty times:78 troop leaders can push, incite, or encourage their contingents (/, Il. 4.254, 6.83, 13.90), but also strengthen them (, Il. 11.215, 12.415, 16.563); they can be held (, Il. 3.77, 7.55) or repelled (, Il. 11.567), inspected in search of a breach in the line (, Il. 13.806), but also pushed (, Il. 5.96), decimated (, Il. 8.279, 19.152), slain (, Il. 11.503), broken (, Il. 7.141, 11.90, 13.718, 15.408), scattered (, Il. 17.285), and finally broken up or split up (, Il. 16.394). These last cases clearly show that epic phalanges are small units that can be separated and act independently. If we compare this list with fifth- and fourth-century vocabulary, a striking fact emerges: the verb tass and related words are completely absent. In fact, there are no expressions in the epics to describe the action of deployment of the phalanges in battle order, and while a great deal of information is given about what they do, very little is said about how they are arranged. This seems to be the result of a different narrative focus, characteristic of epic poetry, that puts the emphasis on action and overlooks technical details of tactical disposition, crucial for the Classical historians. The analysis of related adjectives can provide further information. The emphasis has usually been placed on those cases of phalanxes described as compact or dense (, Il. 4.281, 5.93, 13.145), as if they were testimonies of closed formations resembling the Classical phalanx. These occurrences must be put in context, however, since other examples show that the use of adjectives in the epics is determined by literary reasons: phalanxes can be dark or somber (, Il. 4.281), powerful (, Il. 5.592, 13.90, 127), and even bristling (, Il. 4.282). Finally, the poet sometimes differentiates the last (, Il. 4.254) and the first (, Il. 16.394) phalanxes, which probably means that they do not move simultaneously or at the same pace, and perhaps they do not form a single line, but an irregular and deep front.79 Moving forward in the Archaic period, the term becomes much less frequent in literary sources: only four occurrences can be listed for more than two centuries. Those scarce testimonies, however, seem to be enough to perceive a certain continuity of the Homeric patterns: phalanxes are still multiple,
78.Hom. Il. 3.77, 4.254, 5.96, 6.83, 7.55, 141, 8.279, 11.90, 215, 503, 567, 12.415, 13.90, 718, 806, 15.408, 16.394, 563, 17.285, 19.152. 79. Trojan phalanxes spread () through a bridge built by Apollo to cross the Achaean ditch and then push over the breach in battalions (, Hom. Il. 15.360). The most likely explanation for this is that the contingents did not keep an ordered formation, trying to cross a narrow pass, and then spread to avoid getting crammed on the bridge.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

313

and they present similar features. Hesiod describes the Titans strengthening their phalanxes ( , Theog. 676), while Phobos and Deimos push the dense formations of warriors ( , Theog. 935); in Tyrtaeus, the brave warrior can make the fierce phalanxes of enemies withdraw ( , 12.21), while in Mimnermus an anonymous warrior again pushes the dense phalanxes ( , 14.3). Mimnermus is strikingly referring here to phalanxes of cavalrymen, something absolutely new, but apart from this fact, these few occurrences show the same features detected in Homer: the term is always in the plural, and the related verbs emphasize mobility and scattered units. As a result, the term phalanx is used in poetry in a general, nontechnical, sense: it is not connected with any specific contingent or any specific tactical disposition, but represents a generic way to refer to the groups of troops or units. This is naturally no surprise, since poetic language tends to be metaphorical, in contrast with the language of prose (in a permanent search for conceptual clarity), but it needs to be emphasized. Furthermore, the actual uses of the term seem to have nothing to do with our previous definition of a Classical phalanx: against a coherent and cohesive unit, we find scattered and independent contingents; against an ordered formation in several ranks, we find units moving at their will, creating an irregular front according to the changing circumstances of the battle; against the slowness and alleged rigidity of the Classical phalanx, we find highly mobile units going back and forth on their own initiative. As I am arguing here, Archaic phalanges refer to a different concept than Xenophons phalanx, which belongs to the Classical period. 4. Conclusions: Greek Combat in the Archaic Age Hoplite and phalanx must be regarded as concepts belonging to the Classical period, reflecting the social, political, economic, and ideological context of that time. Their evolutions, however, present different stories: while hoplite is a Classical term without Archaic record, phalanx is an Archaic term completely reinterpreted in the Classical period. The concept of hoplite appears at the beginning of the fifth century as part of a longstanding poetic tradition to designate the status warriors of the Archaic period. In its origins, the term contains a handful of literary conventions (adjectival function, periphrastic construction) and social connotations (citizen warriors, full participation, and integration), gradually left aside during the Classical period. By Thucydides time, the social concept evolves into a more technical one, referring mainly to the military, and the hoplite thus becomes a heavy-armed infantryman, identified against other kinds of troops, and frequently connected with the phalanx. This meaning will predominate in Xenophon and will be preserved in later literature. In contrast, phalanx appears as an old term with a new life in later times. Its original use in the epics as segments denoting the units or contingents of the army, always in the plural, seems to lead to an almost complete vacuum for more than two centuries, until Xenophon recovers the old term to create

314

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

a new one: in the singular form to denote a unity, referring primarily to the Greek heavy infantry, the phalanx will be described as a wide longitudinal front with a variable depth in columns; soldiers seem to be posted in exact positions, making up the long and shallow rectangle of the classical phalanx. Most of these elements can be detected in Herodotus (although in an incipient form) and Thucydides accounts, but hardly earlier. Literary evidence thus points consistently to the Classical period for the consolidation of the notions of hoplite and phalanx; they certainly denote military realities of the Classical period. As a result, they should be used with caution to refer to periods other than Classical Greece.80 This means that, for the sake of metholodogical and conceptual accuracy, we should be fairly certain that Archaic heavy-armed warriors truly resemble classical hoplites in order to call them hoplites, and that Archaic military formations resemble the classical phalanx in order to call them phalanx.81 And I think this is hardly the case. In the past decades, several scholars have analyzed the frequent testimonies of mass combat in Archaic poetry.82 The result is a fairly well-established consensus on the existence of mass combat in Homer. All mass infantry formations, however, do not signify a phalanx in its classical Greek sense;83 indeed, the view has been put forward recently84 that the phalanx, contrary to the previous belief that it was introduced around 700650, developed gradually to consolidate during the early Classical period. Despite recent attempts to reinstate the phalanx and the hoplite to their previous Archaic origins,85 the theory is appealing and compelling, presenting an entirely new picture for Archaic Greek land warfare: masses carrying the weight of the fight, not deployed in a regular or ordered disposition but scattered in different units and open spaces, leaving room for autonomy, freedom, and mobility.86 As shown here, the term phalanx is present in Archaic Greek literature, but the classical concept elaborated by Xenophon is apparently not: there are no references to the verb tass or related words; there is no specific vocabulary
80. As Snodgrass (1964, 204), Foxhall (1997, 131), and Wheeler (1991, 127) suggest. 81. The so-called lexical method, the principle that if a culture doesnt have a word for a thing, then it does not recognise that things existence in Richard Gaskins words (1990, 3), advocated by Bruno Snell and Eric Dodds among others, has been critiziced recently, most notably by Hugh Lloyd-Jones (1983, passim) and Gaskin himself (1990, 36). I am not an advocate of the lexical method myself, and I understand and share Gaskins arguments to a great extent, but the mere existence of a scholarly controversy about the matter suggests that some kind of connection between a concept and the reality it denotes (especially if it is a material or physical reality, as this paper explores, and not an abstract idea) seems indeed plausible. Intellectual or literary conceptualization cannot be utterly dissociated from reality itself, and some kind of mutual interaction must be allowed, as suggested here. Besides, my main concern is not about the ancient Greek conceptualization of hoplite and phalanx, but about the implications of the modern concepts and uses in our understanding of Archaic and Classical Greek warfare. 82.Latacz 1977; Pritchett 1985; Singor 1991; Raaflaub 2005 and 2008. Van Wees (1986, 1988, 1994a, 1994b, and 2000), in contrast, does not agree with the idea of an Archaic phalanx. 83. Wheeler 1991, 127. 84.See Van Wees 2000, 2004, and 2007, 292; Wheeler 1991, 12931 and 2007; Krentz 2007, 7980. 85.Schwartz 2009. This particular work returns to deterministic arguments to reply to Krentz and van Wees, quite unpersuasively in my opinion (Echeverra 2011). For a detailed discussion on determinism and the phalanx, with relevant bibliography, see Echeverra 2008. 86. Van Wees 1986, 1988, 1994a, 1994b, 1997, and 2004. The discussion is too long and complex to be reproduced within the limited framework of this paper, and I refer therefore to the relevant bibliography for further details.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

315

to designate the different contingents and soldiers; there are no indications about order, position, formation, or flanks; there is no information about the disposition of troops, either in a longitudinal front or in any other form; there are no details about width, depth, or density. In conclusion, none of the elements that allowed us to identify the phalanx in the Classical period can be found in the Archaic literary sources. Considering the sources of the Archaic period, as I do, as representative of the literary production of the time, the possibility remains, thus, that these sources are not describing the Classical phalanx, but something else. If we accept a late development of the phalanx as a tactical unit, the gradual consolidation during the Classical period of an entire notion to denote it makes good sense. To this I would add the possibility of a late emergence of the hoplite. Lin Foxhall suggested that whatever hoplites became by the middle of the fifth century, in this period [seventh and sixth centuries] they were something different.87 Heavy-armed warriors belonging to the upper social classes and presented as status warriors88 (armed men who acted as leaders in their communities) were commonplace in Greece since Homer. These warriors, representative of the social and military organization described in the Homeric epics, can be successfully transferred to lyric poetry and thus found everywhere during the Archaic period. With the arrival of the fifth century and its major social and political changes in Greece, these armed warriors (andres, hetairoi, aichmtai) could have evolved into heavy-armed infantrymen more closely connected to the political and military institutions of the polis (hoplitai). In my analysis, the concept evolves to designate the heavy-armed infantryman of the Classical period, gradually deprived of sociopolitical connotations and becoming a technical term frequently (but not always and not necessarily) connected to the phalanx. To sum up, a group of scholars is currently questioning the established views about the origins and development of the hoplite and the phalanx. They have not convinced all doubters though, and academic discussion on the issue is intense and heated. The presentation of the conceptual evolution of the terms hoplits and phalanx as a development belonging to Classical times, however, could potentially render some support to the new approach, first of all because it all seems to point at the Classical period in a very consistent manner; second, because the possibility cannot be ruled out that the evolution in terminology parallels a contemporary transformation in the conduct of warfare. Changes in vocabulary can occur for multiple reasons, most commonly connected with literary genres and traditions, literary and intellectual trends and fashions, and broader social and ideological interests. But we can at least consider the possibility that the simultaneous consolidation of two crucial military concepts in a long and gradual process may indicate the need, new for the intellectuals of the Classical period, to denote the evolving military realities of their time.

87. Foxhall 1997, 131. 88. Van Wees 1992.

316

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

This remains just a possibility and certainly needs to be addressed in detail. For the time being, and in view of my analysis here, I think the terms hoplite and phalanx need to be used with extreme caution when referring to military realities outside the Classical period. Ideally, alternative designations should be agreed upon, terms actually representing the reality of Archaic Greek warfare, and not an incomplete and, to my mind, inaccurate comparison with Classical times. Complutense University
LITERATURE CITED Adcock, Frank E. 1967. The Greek and Macedonian Art of War. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Anderson, John K. 1970. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon. Berkeley and Los Angeles. . 1991. Hoplite Weapons and Offensive Arms. In Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. Victor D. Hanson, 1537. London. Andrewes, Antony. 1974. The Greek Tyrants. London. Bowden, Hugh. 1995. Hoplites and Homer: Warfare, Hero Cult, and the Ideology of the Polis. In War and Society in the Greek World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley, 4563. London. Bryant, Joseph M. 1990. Military Technology and Socio-cultural Change in the Ancient Greek City. Sociological Review 38.3: 484516. Cartledge, Paul. 1977. Hoplites and Heroes: Spartas Contribution to the Technique of Ancient Warfare. JHS 97: 1123. Chantraine, Pierre. 1990. Dictionnaire tymologique de la Langue Grcque: Histoire des Mots. 2 vols. Paris. Detienne, Marcel. 1968. La phalange, problmes et controverses. In Problmes de la Guerre en Grce Ancienne, ed. Jean-Pierre Vernant, 11942. Paris. Donlan, Walter. 1997. The Relations of Power in the Pre-state and Early State Polities. In The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, ed. Lynette G. Mitchell and Peter J. Rhodes, 3948. London. Ducrey, Pierre. 1985. Guerre et Guerriers dans la Grce Antique. Paris. Echeverra, Fernando. 2008. Ciudadanos, Campesinos y Soldados: El Nacimiento de la Plis Griega y la Teora de la Revolucin Hoplita. Madrid. . 2010. Weapons, Technological Determinism and Ancient Warfare. In New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, ed. Garrett Fagan and Matthew Trundle, 2156. Leiden. . 2011. Review of Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece, by Adam Schwartz. JHS 131: 206. Forrest, William G. 1966. The Emergence of Greek Democracy: The Character of Greek Politics, 800400 BC. London. Foxhall, Lin. 1997. A View from the Top: Evaluating the Solonian Property Classes. In The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, ed. Lynette G. Mitchell and Peter J. Rhodes, 11336. London. Gaskin, Richard. 1990. Do Homeric Heroes Make Real Decisions? CQ 40: 115. Greenhalgh, Peter A. L. 1973. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages. Cambridge. Hammond, Nicholas L. G. 1967. A History of Greece to 322 BC. Oxford. . 1982. The Peloponnese. In Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3.3, The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries BC, 32159. Cambridge. Hanson, Victor D. 1990. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Oxford.

HOPLITE AND PHALANX

317

. 1991. Hoplite Technology in Phalanx Battle. In Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. Victor D. Hanson, 6386. London. . 1996. Hoplites into Democrats: The Changing Ideology of Athenian Infantry. In Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern, ed. Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick, 289312. Princeton, N.J. . 1999. The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Holladay, A. J. 1982. Hoplites and Heresies. JHS 102: 94104. Hunt, Peter. 1997. Helots at the Battle of Plataea. Historia 46: 12944. Jameson, Michael H. 1992. The Political and Socio-economic Structure of the Greek Polis. SIFC 85: 15360. Krentz, Peter. 2000. Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek Warfare. In War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees, 167200. London. . 2002. Fighting by the Rules: The Invention of the Hoplite Agn. Hesperia 71: 2339. . 2007. Warfare and Hoplites. In The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, ed.Harvey A. Shapiro, 6184. Cambridge. Latacz, Joachim. 1977. Kampfparnese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirkichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Munich. Lazenby, John F. 1985. The Spartan Army. Warminster. . 1991. The Killing Zone. In Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed.Victor D. Hanson, 87109. London. Lazenby, John, and David Whitehead. 1996. The Myth of the Hoplites Hoplon. CQ 46: 2733. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1983. The Justice of Zeus. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Lorimer, Hilda L. 1947. The Hoplite Phalanx with Special Reference to the Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus. ABSA 42: 76138. . 1950. Homer and the Monuments. London. Meiggs, Russell, and David Lewis, eds. 1988. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Rev. ed. Oxford. Mitchell, Stephen. 1996. Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece. In Battle in Antiquity, ed. Alan B. Lloyd, 87107. London. Murray, Oswyn. 1980. Early Greece. Brighton. Nilsson, Martin P. 1928. Die Hoplitentaktik und das Staatswesen. Klio 22: 24049. Osborne, Robin. 2009. Greece in the Making, 1200479 BC. London. Page, Denys L. 1967. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford. Pritchett, William K. 1985. The Greek State at War. Vol. 4. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Raaflaub, Kurt A. 2000. Zeus Eleutherios, Dionysos the Liberator, and the Athenian Tyrannicides: Anachronistic Uses of Fifth-Century Political Concepts. In Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, ed. Pernille Flensted-Jensen, Thomas H. Nielsen, and Lene Rubinstein, 24975. Copenhagen. . 2005. Homerische Krieger, Protohopliten und die Polis: Schritte zur Lsung alter Probleme. In Krieg, Gesellschaft, Institutionen: Beitrge zu einer vergleichenden Kriegsgeschichte, ed. Burkhard Meissner, Oliver Schmitt, and Michael Sommer, 22966. Berlin. . 2008. Homeric Warriors and Battles: Trying to Resolve Old Problems. CW 101: 46983. Rawlings, Louis. 2000. Alternative Agonies: Hoplite Martial and Combat Experiences beyond the Phalanx. In War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees, 23359. London. . 2007. The Ancient Greeks at War. Manchester. Salmon, John. 1977. Political Hoplites? JHS 97: 84101. Schwartz, Adam. 2002. The Early Hoplite Phalanx: Order or Disarray? ClMed 53: 3164. . 2009. Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece. Stuttgart.

318

FERNANDO ECHEVERRA

Singor, Henk W. 1991. Nine against Troy: On Epic Phalanges, Promachoi and an Old Structure in the Story of the Iliad. Mnemosyne 44: 1762. Snodgrass, Anthony. 1964. Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 BC. Edinburgh. . 1965a. The Hoplite Reform and History. JHS 85: 11022. . 1965b. Lintroduzione degli opliti in Grecia e in Italia. RivStorIt 77: 43444. . 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. London. . 1993. The Hoplite Reform Revisited. DHA 19: 4761. Starr, Chester G. 1991. The Origins of Greek Civilization, 1100650 BC. London. Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. de. 1983. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. London. . 2004. Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays. Oxford. Storch, Rudolph H. 1998. The Archaic Greek Phalanx, 750650 BC. AHB 12: 17. Wees, Hans van. 1986. Leaders of Men? Military Organisation in the Iliad. CQ 36: 285303. . 1988. Kings in Combat: Battles and Heroes in the Iliad. CQ 38: 124. . 1992. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. . 1994a. The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (I). GaR 41: 118. . 1994b. The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (II). GaR 41: 13155. . 1995. Politics and the Battlefield: Ideology in Greek Warfare. In The Greek World, ed. Anton Powell, 15378. London. . 1997. Homeric Warfare. In A New Companion to Homer, ed. Ian Morris and Barry B. Powell, 66893. Leiden. . 2000. The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century. In War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees, 12566. London. . 2001a. The Myth of the Middle-Class Army: Military and Social Status in Ancient Athens. In War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays on Warfare in Antiquity, ed. Tnnes Bekker-Nielsen and Lise Hannestad, 4571. Copenhagen. . 2001b. War and Peace in Ancient Greece. In War, Peace and World Orders in European History, ed. Anja V. Hartmann and Beatrice Heuser, 3347. London. . 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London. . 2007. War and Society. In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 1, ed.Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, 27399. Cambridge. Wheeler, Everett L. 1991. The General as Hoplite. In Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. Victor D. Hanson, 12172. London. . 2007. Battle: Land Battles. In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 1, ed. Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, 186223. Cambridge.