has lost ground, but the older notion of “hoplite warfare” remains the chief model for reconstructing early Greek military dynamics. Orthodoxy holds that “hoplite warfare” should remain the chief model until revisionists achieve “a coherent theory that even begins to replace the orthodox model.”70 The burden of proof thus rests with those who wish to overturn received views.71
This flawed claim merits rejection. “Hoplite warfare” is a general concept missing from ancient Greek sources, and impossible, indeed, to render into ancient Greek. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to give this concept the authority of some heading for an omnibus Greek military inscription that does not and cannot exist. This concept has, admittedly, garnered approval, but only because it seems to bring clarity to complicated and obscure aspects of ancient Greek warfare and politics. Alas, this clarity is illusory, as scholars since Snodgrass and Latacz have shown. Clarity will more likely result from analyses that allow for a greater degree of inconsistency and singularity among the hundreds of different Greek poleis of the Archaic period, as in the work of van Wees.72
The hoplite in “hoplite warfare” resembles the apex of an inverted pyramid. Identified as a reactionary revolutionary, a tyrant-cheering democrat, and a rigidly disciplined military amateur, he has carried too much historical weight for too long. We should put him to rest and pay due attention to other kinds of Greek military personnel described in this volume, from amphibious forces to cavalry.
Notes
1 1 Most noteworthy are a few lyric fragments by Archilochus and Tyrtaeus and a few vase paintings from the mid-seventh century thought to represent closed formations (the Chigi Vase). See Echeverría 2008, 74–85. For recent interpretations of the Chigi Vase, see van Wees 2000a, 2004, 170–172; Hurwit 2002; Viggiano and van Wees 2013b, 67–68.
2 2 Nature and types of sources for Greek warfare: Hornblower 2007; Millett 2013.
3 3 Hanson 2013.
4 4 Morris 1987, 196; Rawlings 2000, 234; Cartledge 2001, 155; Matthew 2009, 395; Krentz 2010; 45; Kagan and Viggiano 2013b. See recently Konijnendijk 2016, 1–2, 2018, 22; Lloyd 2017, 234–235.
5 5 The “hoplite revolution” as a “modern construct”: Raaflaub 1993, 80. More on these theoretical difficulties: Lazenby and Whitehead 1996; Echeverría 2012.
6 6 Snodgrass 1964; see also 1965a, 1965b, 1967, 1971, 1980.
7 7 Main types: Bottini 1988; Bol 1989; Jarva 1995, 2013; Baitinger 2001. Treatments and descriptions of the “hoplite panoply”: Snodgrass 1964, 1967; Anderson 1970, 13–42; Cartledge 1977, 12–15; Anderson 1991; Hanson 1991b; Hunt 2007, 112–117; Krentz 2007a, 67–72; Jarva 2013, 397–412; Lee 2013, 147–149; Viggiano and van Wees 2013b.
8 8 Iconography of the hoplite panoply: Lorimer 1947; Greenhalgh 1973; Salmon 1977; van Wees 2000a; Viggiano and van Wees 2013b.
9 9 Particularly Assyrian and Persian influences. See Lee 2013; Raaflaub 2013a.
10 10 An estimated combined weight of 30–32 kg: Lorimer 1947; Cartledge 1977, 20, 1996; Hanson 1989, 55–88, 1991b; Dawson 1996, 48; Mitchell 1996, 89; Schwartz 2002; Jarva 2013, 398. The idea goes back to Rüstow and Köchly 1852, 44 and Delbrück 1887, 56. See Krentz 2010, 45–50 for discussion.
11 11 Lorimer 1947; Adcock 1957, 3–4; Greenhalgh 1973, 70–74; Cartledge 1977, 12–13, 1996; Salmon 1977; Hanson 1989, 1991a, 1991b; Bryant 1990; Mitchell 1996, 89–91; Schwartz 2002, 2009, 2013; Viggiano 2013. For a recent analysis of the discussion, see Krentz 2013a, 137–140, who situates the origin of the idea in Helbig 1909, 1911.
12 12 Lorimer 1947; Andrewes 1956, 32; Detienne 1968, 139 n. 108; Cartledge 1977, 13, 1996, 712; Bryant 1990, 498; Mitchell 1996, 89; Hanson 2000, 206; Schwartz 2002, 40.
13 13 This quality is used, for example, for chronological purposes: identifying the “hoplite panoply” in painted scenes allows us to date the appearance of the hoplite and, consequently, of the phalanx. This is the premise of most iconographical studies: Helbig 1911; Nilsson 1929; Lorimer 1947; Snodgrass 1965b, 1993; Greenhalgh 1973; Salmon 1977; Anderson 1991. See van Wees 2000a for a comprehensive discussion.
14 14 For discussion with further bibliography, see Jarva 1995; van Wees 2000a, 2004, 47–52; Lee 2013; Echeverría 2015.
15 15 General descriptions of “hoplite warfare”: Adcock 1957, 2–11; Anderson 1970, 1–9; Ridley 1979; Hanson 1983, 1989, 1991a, 1991b; Bryant 1990; Wheeler 1991a, 2007a; Bowden 1993; Dawson 1996, 47–52; Mitchell 1996; Santosuosso 1997; Morgan 2001; Trundle 2001; Lendon 2005, 39–57; Krentz 2007a, 72–77; de Souza 2008; Hunt 2009, 229–30; Lee 2013, 153–157. Theoretical discussions on the nature of “hoplite warfare”: Snodgrass 1965a, 1993; Detienne 1968; Cartledge 1977, 1996; Hanson 1983, 1989, 1991a, 1995, 2000; Krentz 1985a, 2007a, 2007b, 2013a; Connor 1988; Cawkwell 1989; Lazenby 1991; Wheeler 1991a, 2007a; Foxhall 1993; Mitchell 1996; Storch 1998; van Wees 2000a, 2004, 2013; Schwartz 2002; Rawlings 2007, 2013; Echeverría 2011; Lloyd 2017; Konijnendijk 2018.
16 16 Grote 1846, 106–107. The theme also appears in Fustel de Coulanges 1864. Kagan and Viggiano 2013b, 3, describe this background as “proto-orthodoxy”.
17 17 Whom Konijnendijk 2018, 7–12 aptly calls the “Prussians”: Rüstow and Köchly 1852; Droysen 1889; Bauer 1893; Beloch 1897; Lammert 1899; Delbrück 1900; Kromayer and Veith 1903, 1928.
18 18 I follow the treatment by Kagan and Viggiano 2013b as well as Konijnendijk.
19 19 Rüstow and Köchly’s axiom 1852, 118–120, noted by Konijnendijk 2018, 7–10.
20 20 Grundy 1911; Gomme 1945–1981; Adcock 1957; Anderson 1970; Pritchett 1971–1991.
21 21 Grundy 1911; Fraser 1942; Pritchett 1971–1991 IV; Krentz 1985a, 1994, 2013a; Cawkwell 1989; Luginbill 1994; Goldsworthy 1997; Schwartz 2002; van Wees 2004, 188–191; Rawlings 2007, 93–97; Matthew 2009. For a recent analysis of the discussion, see Krentz 2013a, 143–148.
22 22 Grote 1846, 106–107; Rüstow and Köchly 1852; Meyer 1884–1902, v.2 (1893); Grundy 1911; Weber 1922; Nilsson 1929.
23 23 Detienne 1968; Mossé 1968; Vidal-Naquet 1968; Garlan 1972; Ducrey 1985.
24 24 Rüstow and Köchly 1852, 144–145; Droysen 1889, 93–94; Lammert 1899, 21.
25 25 Detienne 1968; Pritchett 1971–1991, v.2; Cartledge 1977; Connor 1988; Hanson 1989, 1991a, 2000; Bryant 1990; Ober 1991, 1994; Dawson 1996, 49–52; Mitchell 1996.
26 26 Ober 1994.
27 27 Snodgrass 1965a, 1993, 2013; Krentz 1985a, 2000, 2002; Foxhall 1993, 2013; Rawlings 2000, 2007, 2013; van Wees 2000a, 2001, 2004, 2013. Terming these writers “revisionist”: Wheeler 2011, 79–104.
28 28 Snodgrass 1964, 1965a, 1965b, 1967, 1971, 1980.
29 29 Snodgrass 1964, 83–84, 89–90, 136–139, 193–204, 1965a, 110.
30 30 Snodgrass 1965a, 115, 1980, 101–102, 106–107.
31 31 Finley 1970; Salmon 1977; Murray 1980.
32 32 Latacz 1977.
33 33 Latacz 1977, 45–67, 224–245.
34 34 As argued by Raaflaub (2005, 2008, 2013a, 2013b), who accepts the existence of a “proto-phalanx” and thus rejects the larger thesis.
35 35 Pritchett 1971–1991 v.4, 1–44; Hanson 1995, 2000. French scholars added a different political color to this scholarship: a hoplite “republic of Equals” in which “political and military systems were perfectly homologous” (Detienne 1968, 140; my translation). See also Greenhalgh 1973; Cartledge 1977, 1996.
36 36 Meyer 1893; Helbig 1911; Weber 1922; Glotz 1928; Nilsson 1928, 1929; Ehrenberg 1932, 1937. Recent critique of the link between Aristotle and hoplite history: Echeverría 2008, 93–103; van Wees 2013.
37 37 Lorimer 1947.
38 38 Lorimer 1947, 76.
39 39 An analysis of technological determinism