Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

  1. #1
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    412

    Default Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Hi all

    We hear of Romans and other peoples fighting in a phalanx like the Greeks. I wonder if they actually fought as Greek hoplites or merely adopted the equipment but not the otismosis.

    The reason I am asking is that being a hoplite and taking your place in the phalanx was culturally an import at part of being a citizen and this was reflected in political structures. As phalanx was a generic word to describe any column of men with spears I have never seen anything specific enough to confirm that Romans not only fought "in a phalanx wearing Greek-like panopoly" but als fought like Greeks.

    Another example would be that the Carthaginians although using an aspis-like shield did not cover their shields with bronze so would not have presented the same solid wall of bronze when in formation .

    Has anyone aware of a specific enough text or am I just drawing my bow too far?
    Last edited by Col.KanKrusha; April 23, 2016 at 07:26 PM.
    ~ Too soon old, too late smart ~

  2. #2

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Using a shield and spear together is not something anyone had a monopoly on. Calling non-Greeks hoplites is slightly wrong though. Hoplite is a specific term for the social class in Greece and the class fought as Hoplites, the military term. Hoplite comes from the generic term for a shield "hoplon." But their specific shield was called an Aspis. Calling medieval Sergeants armed with spears Hoplites though, is like calling swordsmen Legionaries or Hastati. Kind-of right, but it conjures up the wrong imagery.

    Phalanx does work as a generic term for pikemen or shield and spear. Or even just a solid wall of shields, but it has implications that you should consider. The fact that Hoplite has a social and a military term confuses the issue.

    I was under the impression Carthaginians had men with shields and spears, who fought like Greek Hoplites, but due to living in a different society, they were not a social class of hoplites. I think it's fairly accurate to call early Roman soldiers hoplites, due to living in a society very similar to the Greeks, but you'd call their social classes as they are, Hastati, Triarii and so on.

  3. #3
    Charerg's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Actually, "hoplite" comes from hopla, which can be translated as "arms", more or less, as in hoplite=armed man. The term for the shield was aspis, or at least this is the terminology that all the ancient writers I've read used. Perhaps in some context hoplon could refer to the shield, but this was not generally the case. The term "hoplite" did not actually have a social meaning, it was simply used as a generic term for "heavy infantry". The later Greek writers referred to Roman legionaries as hoplites, to give an example.

    As for the question, the answer is yes. Both the Etruscans and the Romans had hoplite armies during classical antiquity, and probably other Italian city states employed hoplites to a greater or lesser extent. The equpment was certainly utilized by the Samnites and other Italian peoples, though I'm not sure if they fully adopted the hoplite tactics. There probably were other groups as well (the Carthaginians, I guess, perhaps also Illyrians and various Anatolian peoples) who adopted Greek equipment and tactics.

    It's worth noting that the early hoplites carried two spears into battle, one of which was thrown and the other used in melee. You can see this in several Greek vases, a few examples:

    Chigi vase (ca. 650 BC):
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Athenian amphora (ca. 550 BC):
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    It's interesting to note the change in tactics from carrying two spears to just one thrusting spear. I'm not sure if the early hoplites already used the dory, or if they simply carried two spears of the longche type (a sort of "medium spear" suitable for both throwing and melee).

    Edit:
    Also, the early aspis were not fully coated in bronze, just the rims. And if the Carthaginians used aspis, I'd guess it was actually bronze-coated, why do you think it wasn't? In any case, the bronze coat was very thin, the shield itself was made of wood.

    Edit2:
    Oh, and btw phalangos wasn't really a term for a specific formation. It could be perhaps translated as "army" or "regiment". For example, if a Greek writer meant "15th legion" he would write "15th phalanx".
    Last edited by Charerg; May 02, 2016 at 10:40 AM.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, of the Imperial House of Hader

  4. #4
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    412

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Charerg articulates quite well the concerns behind my thinking. Mainly, that a modern writer uses the term hoplite to mean a Greek citizen with Argive shield and armed with Dory and sword, however an ancient writer may have meant "a guy in armour"

    He mentions Samnites and here is an interesting Samnite warrior who looks like a hoplite and has a round shield but it is too small to be an Argive shield (EDIT - on second look I think the handle is offset and the sculptor has taken liberties with the size of the shield - otherwise the arm would have fallen off the statue). Which begs the question how many other cultures had men "armed in the Greek manner" but actually fighting in a slightly different way.



    Here is an etruscan warrior from 430-400BC



    Etruscan shield from burial site, clearly has a porpax


    Also a Roman or Latin warrior from 4th Century BC. Also a round greek looking shield - Actually now I look at this it is an Argive shield.



    Here is an original Greek Argive shield - now looks the same to me, I thought they were different!



    I took the idea that Carthaginians had wooden shields, not bronze ones from a poster on RomanArmyTalk who seemed to be quoting latest interpretation. Having looked around since at polybius and livy I find Carthaginian marines described as having "rimless shields" and Carthaginians having "round shields painted white" no mention of bronze. Somebody else might have better luck. However, there are documented finds of bronze shields at phoenecian archeologic sites so it seems at least some of the round shields were bronze faced (likewise Etruscan burial site shows bronze faced shield

    My thesis here was that non-Greeks had round shields, long spear and armour and no doubt formed shield walls but did not form the classic "hoplite" (in its modern usage) phalanx. The images suggest that the shields were Argive shields (allowing for size) with off set handles and my thesis is false. There is no point having that shield unless you fight that way ;-)
    Last edited by Col.KanKrusha; May 04, 2016 at 12:05 AM.
    ~ Too soon old, too late smart ~

  5. #5
    Charerg's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Well, during the time of the Punic Wars, it's considered unlikely that hoplite warfare was still practiced by the Carthaginians. So yes, the Carthaginians of this era probably didn't use the aspis (the Greeks themselves had largely abandoned hoplites in favour of sarissaphoroi or thureophoroi). However, as far as I know the ealier Carthaginian armies did use hoplites (probably adopting the tactic from the Greek colonists of Sicilia).
    Last edited by Charerg; May 04, 2016 at 04:49 AM.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, of the Imperial House of Hader

  6. #6

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    The hoplitical panoply is specially designed to be used in phalanx formation (which simply means several lines of men one next to the other). In more loose formation it would be useless since the hop lite shield sucks related to central grip shields as protection and manovrability.
    What italian people did (I do not know exactely of cartaginians) was to combine heavy infantry with hoplitical equipment and formation with light infantry (usually it relied on social class and wealth). This for romans at least until the 4th century, when they started to develope the manipular formation. Serbian reform of 6th century was made on etruscan model (Servius Tullius was eteuscan) and showed an army based on a phalanx core (first and second class) with support from light infantry (probably on the sides) and skirmishes.
    So yes it was a phalanx on the Greek style but changed to reflect the different society of Italian city states, based on a layered structure of different social classes. There was not the idea of democracy and "everyone equal to everyone else" of Greece. Different classes different roles in battle according to the principle "who has more (to defend), more has to risk"

    Anyway the term "phalanx" can have different meanings. Roman writers use it to define much later manipular formations because they still had rows of men packed together. Old Sumerians used that same formation as shown in representations. Egyptians too.
    While if you mean by it the typical Greek formation with Greek style hoplites with hoplon, it was used for few centuries until better tactics evolved.

    As for samnites and cartaginians hoplites there is no need of speculation. Just Google it (or Google image it).
    This whole idea of making new hypothethical theories about things which are well known and recorded putting in discussion things upon which there are probably hundreds esseys and books is a bit stupid.

    Inviato dal mio SM-G903F utilizzando Tapatalk
    Last edited by andrew881thebest; May 12, 2016 at 12:10 AM.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  7. #7
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,047

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Wait...fighting like hoplite and equipt like one are not the same things.
    Sure...many people coppied or adopted hellenic equipment for their infantry men but that does not mean they fought like ones.
    Persian Kardakes were equipted like hoplites but they never managed to be trained as ones.
    Fighting in an infantry mass does not mean that you form a phalanx of hoplites.
    Italians with Hellenic hoplite equipment were closest to the Hellenic hoplites of the Dark Ages. Heavily armored "knights" on foot!

    Quote Originally Posted by Charerg View Post
    Actually, "hoplite" comes from hopla, which can be translated as "arms", more or less, as in hoplite=armed man. The term for the shield was aspis, or at least this is the terminology that all the ancient writers I've read used. Perhaps in some context hoplon could refer to the shield, but this was not generally the case. .
    That is the worst explanation of what Hoplite means I ever saw in my 45 years of life.
    You confuse modern Greek language with Clasic Hellenic one.
    Hoplon was the Corinthian totaly round version of the Argolid shield.
    Several shields had diferent names even i MYcenean era.
    Just like not all spears had the name Dory.
    Spears were Palton, Xiston, Kamakas and many others.
    Hoplite means the one that carries the hoplon shield like Doryphoros means the one that carries a spear.
    Opla (arms) came as generic term meaning weapons in 19th century like also the term "armata" with the same meaning despite the fact that Arma was the chariot but its mycenean name was Oha. From the mycenean name of the charior (aka vehicle) we modern Greeks use the term epohoumeno that actually means waht is over (carried) by a vehicle.
    Please BEFORE give explanations in Greek language , make a little research before you proceed.
    PLEASEEE
    Last edited by AnthoniusII; May 12, 2016 at 05:39 AM.
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  8. #8
    Charerg's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    That is the worst explanation of what Hoplite means I ever saw in my 45 years of life.
    You confuse modern Greek language with Clasic Hellenic one.
    Hoplon was the Corinthian totaly round version of the Argolid shield.
    Several shields had diferent names even i Mycenean era.

    Hoplite means the one that carries the hoplon shield like Doryphoros means the one that carries a spear.
    Opla (arms) came as generic term meaning weapons in 19th century like also the term "armata" with the same meaning despite the fact that Arma was the chariot but its mycenean name was Oha. From the mycenean name of the charior (aka vehicle) we modern Greeks use the term epohoumeno that actually means waht is over (carried) by a vehicle.
    Please BEFORE give explanations in Greek language , make a little research before you proceed.
    PLEASEEE
    Actually, the etymology I provided is used in some publications, from Osprey's "Greek Hoplite":

    The Greek word for 'weapon' is hoplon, and so a hoplite was literally a 'man at arms' (see Lazenby & Whitehead, Classical Quarterly 46 (1996) 27-33).
    According to wikipedia, the etymology is disputed, so perhaps it does come from "shield". However, it seems (to me) that hopla was used to refer to "arms" even during the Classical era, from Thucydides (book 2, chapter 100):

    ἦν δὲ οὐ πολλά, ἀλλὰ ὕστερον Ἀρχέλαος ὁ Περδίκκου υἱὸς βασιλεὺς γενόμενος τὰ νῦν ὄντα ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ᾠκοδόμησε καὶ ὁδοὺς εὐθείας ἔτεμε καὶ τἆλλα διεκόσμησε τά [τε] κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ παρασκευῇ κρείσσονι ἢ ξύμπαντες οἱ ἄλλοι βασιλῆς ὀκτὼ οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι.

    Translated as:
    Of these there was no great number, most of those now found in the country having been erected subsequently by Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas, on his accession, who also cut straight roads, and otherwise put the kingdom on a better footing as regards horses, heavy infantry, and other war material than had been done by all the eight kings that preceded him.
    Now, I admit I could be wrong in this (and do point out if this is the case), but I think the passage should be translated as "better footing as regards horses, arms, and other war material". And here, I do not believe the passage means "horses, shields, and other war material", since so far as I know the Macedonians never used hoplites (outside of the royal guard, perhaps), and in any case it seems more logical that Thucydides meant "arms" rather than shields specifically.

    Edit:
    Another example where hopla refers to "arms", from Aeschines, the Speech on the Embassy, section 2:

    ἐνεχείρησε δ᾽ ἀπεικάζειν με Διονυσίῳ τῷ Σικελίας τυράννῳ, καὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς καὶ κραυγῆς πολλῆς παρεκελεύσαθ᾽ ὑμῖν φυλάξασθαι, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἱερείας ἐνύπνιον τῆς ἐν Σικελίᾳ διηγήσατο. οὕτω δ᾽ ἄνω τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξάρας, ἐφθόνησέ μου ταῖς διαβολαῖς, τὰς αἰτίας ἀνατιθεὶς τῶν πεπραγμένων οὐ τοῖς ἐμοῖς λόγοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὅπλοις τοῖς Φιλίππου.

    and he undertook to liken me to Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, and vehemently and with loud cries he called upon you to be on your guard against me; and he related the dream of the priestess in Sicily. Then, after all this exaggeration, he begrudged me the credit even for what he had slanderously charged me with accomplishing, and ascribed it all, not to my words, but to the arms of Philip.
    Again, it's unlikely that the writer is referring to the "shields of Philip" here.

    Moreover, when "hoplon" is used to refer to shields, it is used in a more generic sense than as a reference to the hoplite shield. Xenophon in the Anabasis (4.3.4) when describing the Chaldeans: ὅπλα δ᾽ εἶχον γέρρα μακρὰ καὶ λόγχας (Translation: they had as weapons long wicker shields and lances). Here, he's using hopla for wicker shields.

    Overall, the term "hoplite" could derive from "shield", but it does seem clear that hopla could also refer to "arms" in a more general sense even during the Classical era. But I admit that the etymology deriving "hoplite" from hoplon=shield is what is commonly used. On a quick search it seems that there isn't really a consensus on the matter.
    Last edited by Charerg; May 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, of the Imperial House of Hader

  9. #9
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,047

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Osprey uses fragments of the texts.
    Because Hoplon came to a point to describe the entire equipment.
    But not all shield carriers were hoplites even they used "opla" in your point of view.
    Xenophon describes the LONG shields with the term opla gerra , the other "weapon is lonchi.
    Geron
    Aegis
    Thyreos
    Aspis
    Pealte and finaly Hoplon are shield names that describe DIFERENT kind and shape shields.
    "Translation" by Grammar B.
    Likewise
    Xifos is not the same with Aor (despite the fact that xifos actually replaced as term to describe diferent swords).
    Dory is a spear but spear is also Kamakas (modern greeks use the term today to describe harpoon) but xiston is also a spear.
    Palton is a long spear like sarissa but they are not the same!
    That is why "Hoplitae" (gr:Οπλιται) never used OTHER kind of shield.
    That is why Greeks gave other names to other shield carriers like Thyreophoros (the one tha carries a Thyreos), Peltastes(the one that uses a Pealte) and for a strange reason Hellens when they wanted that they are under protection used "under the Aegis" that actually is a shield covered with Goat skin (Aega).
    Aspis was the transition from mycenean thyreos (not the Gualic one) to the late mycenean metal round shields that led to Argolic shields that led tp Hoplon.
    The habbit to name the soldiers by the kind of shields they used continued with the Roman Empire of middle ages.
    After 450 we do not have Legioners (soldiers of a legion) but we have Scutati (those that carry a scutus=shield).
    Greek language is a very complicated issue even for educated people. In our conversations in FB with Mr D'Ammato we try to "solve" such issues. Luckily he knows Greek language quite well.
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  10. #10
    Charerg's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    623

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    What do you mean by "Translation by Grammar B.", and if the said translations are inaccurate (they are from Perseus), then how would you translate the relevant passages?

    Now, I admit I'm not aware what the Mycenaean/Archaic terms for various shields were (are they even known that accurately?). So, possibly hoplon was once a term specifically describing a "hoplite shield". However, Thucydides and Herodotus at least tend to use "aspis". This is the term that is by far the most commonly used, when the writer refers to the hoplite shield. However, you say that:

    Aspis was the transition from mycenean thyreos (not the Gaulic one) to the late mycenean metal round shields that led to Argolic shields that led to Hoplon.
    Again, perhaps at some point aspis was something else than the hoplite shield, but it's quite clear that the Classical era Greek authors use aspis for the hoplite shields.

    And if we consider the terminology in later texts, "hoplite" was used to describe both sarissa-bearing "phalangites" and roman legionaries. Clearly the term had at least by ca. 0 AD if not earlier come to denote "heavy infantry" in general, regardless of the shield type.

    Also, apparently I'm not alone in thinking that "hoplite" could mean "armed" instead of "hoplon-bearer". Here's an interesting debate regarding the etymology of the word: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...of-the-Hoplite. In this debate most seem to consider the "armed" etymology as more likely. That said, apparently there's a passage by Diodorus where he mentions that "Peltasts take their name from their pelta just as hoplites were named for their shields." However, as Diodorus lived in the 1st century BC, the etymology described by Diodorus is sometimes considered erroneous. All in all, it seems that "hoplite" could plausibly be derived from either "arms" or from "shield".

    But ultimately the argument boils down to the question if the early Greeks used "hoplon" to describe the hoplite shield specifically. What evidence is there that this was the case? As I mentioned, the Classical authors tend to use "aspis" predominantly.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, of the Imperial House of Hader

  11. #11

    Default Re: Did non-Greeks really fight as hoplites?

    Yes they was fighting but they was worst than original Greek hoplites. Roman hoplites lost to Gauls of Vrenus when Greek hoplites win Gauls of Vrenus (diferent Vrenus this time). Carthagian hoplites lost to Syracuses hoplites many times even they had more men. Persian hoplites was worst too. The Persian Kings prefered to use mercenary Greek hoplites than Persian one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •