CHAPTER 19
EERO JARVA
THERE is common agreement that heavy armed hoplites fighting in phalanx formations comprised the principal military force in the ancient Greek world. While other types of soldiers are known, for example, horsemen and slingers, hoplites dominated the battlefield for generations. This chapter will examine primarily these armored infantrymen and the weapons they carried.
The equipment hoplites generally carried included body armor, a thrusting spear, and a short sword. Armor included helmet, shield, breastplate, greaves, and, to some extent, optional pieces like guards for the right arm, thighs, and ankles. Artistic evidence has shaped this picture which should be modified by evidence provided by finds of arms and armor, the majority of which comes from panhellenic sanctuaries, especially that at Olympia.
Military equipment is often referred to as a panoplia, the full equipment. Aeschylus stresses the important role of the spear and shield (Pers. 240), which, as in Athens, seems evident in the practice reported by Aristotle ([Ath. Pol.] 42.4) of the state presenting these to those youths who had completed their ephebic training (also Plut. Mor. 220A; id. Pel. 1.5). Some inscriptions attest partial panoplies, while in other cases breastplates seem to have been limited to officers (Robert 1976: 155, ll. 33–4; Freyel 1935: 37–40 ll. 6–7). A late archaic Athenian decree (ML 14) concerning settlers on Salamis states they are to possess hopla with the value of thirty drachmae. This provides some guide to the normal cost of arms at this time, though it is difficult to see how both metal armor and weapons could be acquired at this price (Jarva 1995: 148–54).
The essential importance of the hoplite shield finds support in the armor discovered at Olympia, the quantity of which roughly corresponds to the three hundred panoplies dedicated in Attic sanctuaries during the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 3.113–114). Bronze helmets form the largest category, followed by shields and greaves, with other types of equipment far behind: cuirasses are even fewer than ankle guards (Jarva 1995: 111–12 n. 61). The predominance of helmets may be explained by their use not only by hoplites but other warriors, an interpretation supported by images in Greek art. Rare items of armor may reflect the choice and wealth of elite hoplites, but they also provide the full picture of the hoplite panoplia (Snodgrass 1964: 88–9; id. 1967: 92–3). Those soldiers depicted in Greek art and equipped only with helmet, shield, and weapon may be examples of heroic nudity (Hurwit 2007: 35–60); the barefooted warrior may be the most common expression of this phenomenon (Jarva 1995: 107–08).
The prevailing picture is that Greek hoplites provided their own equipment as the above-mentioned Athenian inscription from Salamis suggests. But there may have been also a role for the state. Thucydides relates how the Athenians recruited seven hundredthetes as marines for service in Sicily, probably arming them as well (see Thuc. 6.43.1, with Gomme-Andrewes-Dover 4: 310), and this may have been the case too in contemporary Sparta, as suggested by the manufacture of equipment in Ephesus ordered by Agesilaus (Nep. Ages. 3.2).
Recent discussions suggest that it was in the years after the Persian Wars that the hoplite phalanx reached its classical form with further changes by Epaminondas of Thebes, followed by the creation of the Macedonian phalanx by Philip II (see further Rawlings, 18–21). On the other hand, soldiers on a Late Mycenaean warrior vase from Mycenae suggest hoplite-type warfare (cf. Plin. HN 7.202; Athens NM 1426; Snodgrass 1967: plate 10–11). Pictures reflecting organized warfare may also be seen in the “parading” warriors represented on Geometric vases offering a sequence of scenes with Dipylon shields, while from Late Geometric IIb onward we see round shields. These suggest the introduction of the two-handled hoplite shield about 720 (Jarva 1995: 120) and that its introduction marked an improvement upon current fighting techniques (Latacz 1977: 237–8; cf. Pritchett 4: 7–44; Morris 1987: 25, 196–201).
A principal development of the phalanx was its increasing depth: ranks of eight and sixteen men became the norm. Another development was increasing mobility. Herodotus tells (6.112) that the Athenians at Marathon were the first to advance at the run against their enemies and other sources mention similar cases of troops running into battle (Thuc. 4.31.1, 4.96; Xen. An. 1.2.17; Plut. Pel. 23.2; also Lazenby 1991: 90–1). On the other hand the race in arms at the Olympic games, introduced in 520 (Paus. 5.8.10), and Attic vase paintings suggest that by Marathon such tactics were neither new nor unusual (see, e.g., Pritchett 1: 134–43 and tables 4–9, with sources).
Different regional names are used by modern scholars when speaking of Greek arms and armor. Only some of these are ancient and regardless of ancient or modern origin readers should not take them literally. Moreover, descriptions of arms and armor in written sources are limited. The descriptions Herodotus provides of barbarian equipment (7.61–95; also 9.20–63 passim) are far more detailed than anything existing for Greek arms except for some of the Homeric descriptions. For this reason, finds of arms and armor dedicated at the panhellenic sanctuaries, especially Olympia (practices attested already in Homer, e.g., Il. 5.43–48) provide an important body of evidence.
ARMOR
Shield
Round bronze shields are mentioned in Homer (Trümpy 1950: 20–32). This can be interpreted as a reference to the Bronze Age, as round shields are represented in late Mycenaean art (e.g., crater fragments in Athens: Petrakos 1993: 44, fig. 32), though there is room for eastern influence too as in the case of shields with animal heads (Snodgrass 1964: 50, 52). Altogether evidence of Greek shields before the eighth century is scarce (Herzsprung-type shields, Snodgrass 1964: 55–6, plate 24; Borchhardt 1977: 39–44, figs. 5–6). A square shield wielded by a single handgrip is depicted on an early Protogeometric crater from Cnossus and appears on Geometric vases too. More common in Geometric art are round shields, which in some cases seem smaller than hoplite shields (Boardman 1998: fig. 22; Tölle 1964: apps. III and IV). For the most part it is difficult to know just how they were carried, or whether they depict bronze shields with animal heads or bosses of supposed eastern influence (Snodgrass 1964: 52–5, plates 23, 25). Geometric vases also portray a shield with large lateral cutouts, the so-called the Dipylon shield, but its authenticity has been questioned (Tölle 1964: app. IV; Snodgrass 1964: 58–60, id. 1967: 44–5, 55; Greenhalgh 1973: 64–70). On the other hand its existence would help in understanding the transition to the round hoplite shield before the end of the eighth century.
Following Diodorus (15.44.5) it is sometimes thought that hoplites took their name from the word hoplon and their large round shield. It seems more likely, however, that the term hoplites refers to all the equipment they carried, not just the shield (Lazenby and Whitehead 1996: 27–33). The hoplite shield is also called Argive (aspis argolike), and according to Aelian (VH 3.24) and Pollux (Onom. 1.149) was famous.
The characteristics of the hoplite shield can be reconstructed from numerous finds and artistic representations. Its diameter ranged from about 80 to 110 cm, depending on the size of the owner (Xen. Mem. 3.9.12). The concave-convex core of the shield was wood, the use of which is noted in some shields discovered at Olympia (Bol 1989: 3; see also Blyth 1982; Seiterle 1982). The thickness of the wooden structure in the outer face is estimated at about 2 cm (Seiterle 1982: 259).
It seems that originally the use of bronze was limited, even on the outer surface, while for the interior leather and wood were most commonly used. The Chigi vase (ca. 650) suggests use of perishable material for the central armband, through which the left arm bore the shield (in van Wees 2000: fig. 9). The bronze shield bands from Olympia are dated not earlier than the last three decades of the seventh century. The vertically posed armband is set so that the upper arm of the bearer was behind it in the middle axle and the armhole of the band was set a little above the horizontal middle axle of the shield. The round rim (about 5 cm) jutted sharply from the core of the shield and inside it there was a plaited handgrip fixed by metal fittings; some vase paintings show a spare handgrip on the opposite side of the shield. The size and the placing of the handles means that the shield gave extensive protection from the tip of the nose or chin down to the knees or upper part of the shins, being thus not essentially different from the aspisdescribed by Tyrtaeus (F1.23–24). The concavity of the shield made it possible to support its weight on the shoulder (Kunze 1950: 231–44; Bol 1989: 2, 93–101; Funde aus Olympia 1980, p. 105 fig. 13; Euphronios 1991, nos. 4, 34). The warrior-poet Archilochus describes how he once abandoned his shield in retreat. This has suggested that the hoplite shield could not be carried on the back, but this is not the case (Anderson: 15–16, 260 n. 10, plate 3; cf. van Wees 2000: 126).
The bronze sheeting covering the outer face of the shields is very thin (less than 0.5 mm) whereas on the border the thickness could be near 1 mm; some additional strength was provided by decorative ornaments (Seiterle 1982: 257–8, fig. 11). In the technical study of an archaic shield, traces of a lathe have been identified, indicating with other technical features a very refined technology. In some cases the outer face of the shields was provided with blazons made of bronze sheeting. The weight of the hoplite shields can be estimated to 6 to 7 kg.1
A noteworthy change in the hoplite shield toward the end of the archaic period is an appendage (clearly of nonmetallic material) sometimes seen hanging from it (figure 19.1). Most representations of such a shield apron are known from Athenian vase paintings, but there are also examples in eastern Greek art of the late archaic and classical periods. The shield apron was surely a response to eastern archers, though it appears also in scenes of hoplite fighting. Athenian vase paintings depicting this protective device reflect the Persian Wars of the early fifth century (Jarva 1986).
A shield that appears frequently on seventh- and sixth-century vase paintings and on Boeotian coins is called the Boeotian (figure 19.2). The general shape, mostly oval in outline and provided with two distinctive scallops, is reminiscent of the Dipylon. Some shields are handled vertically by a central grip, others from a loop; on Athenian black figure vases it is normally held laterally and provided with the double grip typical of the hoplite shield. It is frequently argued that the Boeotian shield is more heroic than real.2John Boardman and Hans van Wees, however, have argued that the Boeotian shield is real and that it was carried with an outstretched arm. Identified fragments of the metallic parts of this shield are not known (Boardman 1983: 27–33; van Wees 2000: 134, 158 n. 17). In fact, during the archaic and classical periods shields may have existed which have not been preserved in the archaeological record. Thucydides (4.9) mentions shields in which wicker was used, but we cannot be sure that bronze was not used on their rims and handles.
Figure 19.1 Depiction of the interior of a hoplite’s shield including a shield apron or skirt. From A. Furtwängler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei: Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder. Serie III. Munich, 1932, plate 170.
The ordinary hoplite shield appears in Macedonian art from the first half of the fourth century and there is reason to think that it remained in use in the time of Alexander the Great. But another shield, a round one, rimless and carried by a strap leaving both hands free for handling the heavy sarissa, was introduced, perhaps during the second half of the fourth century (Markle 1999: 243–51). In fact there are two variants of such a shield, one bowl-like and the other provided with a flat curvature. The flat one corresponds to the recommendation of Asclepiodotus (5.1) who wrote that the best shield for a phalanx is the Macedonian bronze shield, eight palms in diameter.
Figure 19.2 A Spartan relief vase with detail of a Boeotian shield carried by the soldier in the foreground above. From G. Perro and C. Chipiez, La Grèce antique: La ceramique d’Athènes. Histoire de l’ art dans l’antiquité X. Paris, 1914, p. 164, fig. 81.
In Attic red figure vases archers are pictured with a small round shield. We might wonder if such shields should be called aspides or possibly peltai. The pelte is famous as an innovation of the fourth century Athenian general Iphicrates (Nep. Iphic. 4), though we hear of Thracian peltastai already during the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 2.29). The pelte is generally identified as a crescent-shaped shield with a central armband and lateral handgrip and made of perishable materials. But it may be that the name refers to different forms and materials. Xenophon mentions the pelte as the typical equipment of the Thracians (Mem. 3.9.2), but elsewhere (An. 5.2.29–32) he speaks of bronze peltai used by Cretan archers. According to Aristotle (F498 Rose) bronze and oxhide were not used, but rather goatskin or something similar, and he says that the pelte is rimless. In art Amazons and other legendary figures carry the crescent-shaped shield, but so do archers and mounted warriors in typical hoplite dress (e.g., Para 327.50bis; Para327.50bis, Add 80;ARV 2 63.95, ARV 860.5).
Helmets
There is a large variety of helmets both among the surviving examples and those depicted in art. Many of these have been found with small holes punched or drilled along the edges. These were used for fastening an inner lining in order to ease chafing and provide insulation against cold. But they also afforded a decorative element, at least when silver studs were used for fixing the lining. The decorative function may partly explain why armorers made the perforations closer together over time. Sometime before the end of the sixth century craftsmen abandoned this design style as it was not possible to make the holes any tighter. Accordingly, the spacing of the perforations often helps in dating archaic helmets and other armor (Rostoker 1986: 93–4, plate 7, figs. 2–6; decoration: Funde aus Olympia 1980: 94, plate 55; Jarva 1995: 65–72, fig. 28).
An early example of the so-called Kegelhelm comes from Argos, discovered in a burial dated by its pottery to the last quarter of the eighth century. This helmet is made of five bronze sheets, with a thickness of 2 to 3.5 mm, riveted together and provided with an imposing crest. The weight of the Argos helmet is 2.05 kg and it bears clear similarities to oriental helmets (Courbin 1957: 333–40, 356–67, figs. 39–45, plate 4; Pflug 1988a: 12–14, 19, 27–40 [Cypriot helmets]).
The so-called Illyrian helmet can be traced from the late eighth into the fourth century. Athena wears an Illyrian helmet on some shieldband reliefs and appears on coins of northern Greece in the fifth century. The distribution of the early helmets suggests that originally it was from the Peloponnesus, but later became popular in Macedonia and more northern regions.3 Among early examples of the late eighth to the late seventh century are helmets made of two halves riveted together; in some later examples a seam marked by grooves is visible between the crestholder ridges. This helmet has a wide rectangular opening for the face between pointed cheekpieces, though Patricia Foster has demonstrated that lateral visibility was relatively limited. In late variants there are visible features adopted from other helmet types: ear cuttings, movable cheekpieces, and setting off of the crown by a ridge. The thickness in these helmets varies from 1 to 2 mm. In a fragmentary late sixth century example in London, weighing 1.137 kg, the rear edge is 0.5 mm thick, whereas the front is 2 mm.4
By far the most common of Greek helmets is the enclosed type called Corinthian (figure 19.3). While its appearance on Protocorinthian vases and Corinthian coins of the archaic period supports this connection, no doubt this helmet was made widely in the Greek world. Between the late eighth and the sixth/fifth centuries the helmet underwent notable changes toward a variant in which there was a marked ridge between the crown and the lower part. Patricia Foster has again demonstrated that the lateral visibility of the Corinthian helmet was relatively good. The Corinthian type apparently did not continue in use long after the Persian Wars, although artistic representations of the late variant, which could be raised above the forehead, continued through the classical and Hellenistic periods (Pflug 1988d: 65–106; Foster 1978: 5, 9; cf. Snodgrass 1967: 94; also Dintsis 1986: Beilage 6).
Figure 19.3 Corinthian helmet with battle damage, c. 600–550. British Museum, London (GR 1977.1–1.8; Bronze 2836). Photo Credit: L. Tritle.
The metal thickness in the Corinthian helmet varied between 1 to 2 mm, but there is a visible tendency toward thinner shells in the late archaic period. The weight of the Corinthian helmets during the archaic period was mostly in the range of 1.2 to 1.5 kg, but late examples could be below 1 kg.5
Some Corinthian helmets, at least those from Italy, are divided vertically in two halves, indicating their manufacture by the hammering of bronze sheets, but generally their fabrication technique is not well known. An old theory is that Corinthian helmets were made by hammering out a single bronze sheet, but it has also been suggested that they were hammered from cast preforms. A fragmentary helmet in Stockholm is said to have been soldered together from at least seven pieces.6
Archaic Cretan bronze helmets are mostly quite closed, leaving, however, the face of their bearers more open than the Corinthian. These helmets consist of two hammered sheets joined with a longitudinal seam along the crown, making them essentially lighter than the Corinthian. Together with other related armor these helmets are dated between the third quarter of the seventh and the early sixth century (Hoffman 1972: 1–6, 17–19, 21–2, 41–6, plates 1–18). Light in weight, their use figures among the renowned Cretan archers and argues for a more mobile form of warfare.
Artistic evidence suggests that some helmets on the islands and among eastern Greeks differed from mainland types. From Lindos come riveted cheekpieces provided with cuttings for eyes and mouth, datable to the seventh century (cf. figure 19.2). The technique is reminiscent of that used in the Kegelhelm. A so-called Ionian helmet is known mainly from plastic representations on Rhodian aryballoi of the late seventh and sixth centuries. Made of several pieces, this helmet has a longitudinal projection on the crown, perhaps functioning as a crest holder, but may also serve as a technical feature joining the two halves of the crown (Cook 1981: plates 6, 84, 85, 106; Blinkenberg 1931: plates 22–3; Edrich 1969: 82, 106–7).
The helmet known today as the Chalcidian appears from around the mid-sixth through the fourth century and can be seen as a lightened modification of the Corinthian. An Attic variant of this helmet appears on Attic vase paintings of the Persian War era (Dintsis 1986: plates 63.2 and 4; Bovon 1963: figs. 2, 4, 7, 13). The Chalcidian can be seen in several variants distinguished on the basis of the cheekpieces, which are regularly provided with ear cuttings and often with hinged cheekpieces. These helmets weigh about 1 kg or a little less.7 The features of the Chalcidian helmet are generally good, as large openings for the eyes offered good visibility. But the breadth of the cheekpieces sometimes restricts lateral visibility. Lateral cuttings for the ears provide good acoustic properties, but the helmet often leaves the lower part of the face relatively unprotected (figure 19.4).
Attic vase paintings show hoplite contests in which an Attic version of the Chalcidian helmet appears, but its owners are very often beardless youths engaged in exercises related to armed race contests. Two principal variants can be distinguished: those provided with a crown and neckguard only and those with stiff or hinged cheekpieces as well. Both versions also leave the forehead quite open and there is often a diadem-like mounting above it (see Dintsis 1986: 105–12 and Beilage: 8). The existence of these helmets is problematic in view of the absence of surviving samples and that wearers are only rarely other than the goddess Athena or Amazons.
A helmet common in fifth-century Athenian vase paintings is provided with a peak and hinged cheekpieces modeled to leave the eyes and mouth free. This helmet and a heterogenous group of similar designs have been called Thracian as well as Pseudo-Attic, Attic, and Macedonian (cf. Kunze 1994: 98–100; Dintsis 1986: 128–9; Vokotopoulou 1982: 519 and n.95; Dintsis 1986: 128). The technical features of the peak helmets are quite varied, but there are notable similarities too. In fifth century vase paintings a typical element is a crest, seen as well in a helmet from Boeotia in the British Museum. The crest reveals that the crown of the helmet was hammered from a sheet and soldered together along the top. Another original peak helmet of unknown origin in Berlin is better preserved. This type offered full vision to its user, which suggests comparison with Xenophon’s recommendation (Eq. mag. 12.1–14) of the Boeotian helmet for cavalrymen: it is best because it provides cover for all parts remaining above the breastplate and does not obstruct one’s vision.8
Figure 19.4 The soldier on the left wears a type of the Chalcidian helmet and a corselet with shoulder pieces. From the Penthesilea Painter (5th c. B.C.), Achilles killing Penthesilea. Attic kylix. Staatliche Antikensammlung, Munich. bpk/Antikensammlung/Art Resource, NY.
Xenophon’s ideal helmet has been long identified as a hat-like helmet, an original of which from the Tigris may be found today in Oxford. But neither the protection it offered nor the vision it afforded could be described as perfect. Other types of headgear were also transformed into metal helmets: a broad-brimmed hat helmet, petasos, has been found in Athens, but a better known case is the conical felt hat, pilos, made in bronze, pilos chalkous, which is mentioned by Aristophanes (Lys. 562) and known from many examples (see figure 6.2).9
Body Armor
Discussion of breastplates usually focuses on the bell and muscle cuirass, but linen and leather corselets are also known. This terminology follows the analysis of Arnold Hagemann (1919), outlining the development of an archaic bell cuirass (figure 19.2) through an improved bell cuirass of the fifth century to the later muscle cuirass proper.
The discovery of a late Geometric grave and panoply at Argos extended the chronology of the archaic bell cuirass into the eighth century (Courbin 1957: 322, 339–40). The iron cuirass found in the famous royal grave at Vergina has shown that the breastplate identified as a leather corselet by Hagemann could have been made of metal (Andronicos 1984: 140–4), which supports Plutarch’s description (Mor. 595E) of an iron cuirass in an early fourth-century context. The discovery in Thrace of a group of bronze cuirasses provides additional evidence of the use of metal in the manufacture of armor (Ognenova 1961: 501–38).
Altogether there are about forty cuirasses of the archaic bell type mainly from the Olympia excavations and another group from Crete, perhaps all from Afrati (Jarva 1995: 20–3). There is not much structural variation among these: the front and back plates are roughly modeled to conform to male anatomy, noting shoulder blades, breast muscles, and abdominal arch. Artistic representations suggest that near the end of the archaic period the cuirass developed a more naturalistic rendering of anatomical forms parallel with trends in sculpture. Around the neck there was a prominent collar in order to parry blows directed at this vulnerable spot. The bottom of the cuirass had an outward-jutting edge to protect the lower body from spear or sword strikes from above. On the shoulders, the two halves were joined by short spikes passing through small holes: on the left side small rings served for lacing and on the right side there were two tubular fasteners passed through rectangular slots and secured by pins. The weight of the Argive cuirass (3.36 kg) may be representative of this type (Boardman 1978: fig. 215, 1–2; Courbin 1957: 340, 350).
The edges around the openings were rolled around a wire. It is thought that the technique of making bronze plate cuirasses was beating from a sheet, and Hagemann suggested that the cuirasses were hammered on wooden forms of different sizes, like shoe trees (Hagemann 1919: 83; see also Courbin 1957: 340; Hoffman 1972: 19).
Vase paintings suggest that during the late archaic period there were metal cuirasses without the characteristic bell hem and sometimes provided with flaps hanging from the lower edge (Neck amphora, Basle BS453: CVA Basle 2, plate 46.2; Jarva 1995: 29–30, fig. 7). Perhaps in reality there were more options than the few surviving originals indicate.
The front plate of the muscle cuirass typically extends downward more than the bell cuirass in order to protect the abdominal area; sometimes the same feature also appears in the back plate. This cuirass was popular during the classical period and experienced a revival during the Roman era when it became the accepted style for Imperial statuary (figure 19.5). A fragment of a late archaic original bronze cuirass of this type has been found at Olympia. A late fourth to early third-century burial discovered in Prodromi in Thesprotia has shown that this kind of cuirass could be made of iron and provided with shoulder pieces. Possibly it was this cuirass that Xenophon advised for horsemen (Eq. mag. 12.1–5) and which Aelian and Pollux (VH 3.24, Onom. 1.149) called Attic.10
Figure 19.5 Detail depicting body armor. From A. Furtwängler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei: Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder. Serie III. Munich, 1932, plate 76.
The most common corselet is a coat tied on the left side and provided with shoulder pieces attached on the breast and with flaps hanging around the waist (see figure 19.4). It is known from late archaic and classical art, but it may be represented already in late Geometric. There are many structural variations in this corselet: scale and lamellar patterns represented in vase paintings indicate the use of metal, but there is reason also for identifying the use of linen and leather. No doubt bronze was mainly used for scales and lamels, but sometimes also iron, as indicated by the scale corselet from Idalion in Cyprus; iron sheets were also used to make the corselet discovered in the royal burial at Vergina. Iron is mentioned as the material used in a Cypriot breastplate presented to Demetrius Poliorcetes, but its construction is unknown (Plut. Demetr. 21.3; see Johnston 1982: 1–7; Gjerstad 1935: 538–9, no. 236, plate 172; Andronicos 1984: 140–4, plates 95–6; see also figure 19.4).
Use of linen for corselets is mentioned in many sources beginning with the Iliad where it is worn by Locrian Ajax (2.529) and the Trojan ally Amphius (2.830). A piece of linen fourteen layers thick has been discovered at Mycenae, perhaps part of a linen corselet (Studniczka 1887: 21–4, fig. 4; Snodgrass 1967: 18). In Athenian black-figure vase paintings the shoulder piece corselet is often represented in white, which suggests the use of linen fabrics. Pollux (Onom. 7.70) states that there was a breastplate (thorax) calledspolas made of hide and hanging from the shoulders. Many vase paintings suggest that the corselets represented in them were made by cutting them from a sheet: stiff neckpiece and shoulder pieces, but especially the characteristic short projections hanging down at the back, below the shoulder blades. Such a corselet could be made in the way reported by Xenophon (An. 3.3.20) of equipping a cavalry force ad hoc with spolades and thorakes (ARV 182.5 [Jarva 1995: 46–7, fig. 11]; ARV 15.6 [Euphronios 1991: no. 13]).
It seems possible that use of the linen corselet continued through the Dark Ages although evidence is absent. A possible link between the Mycenaean period and the Geometric period is the representation of hunters on an early Protogeometric crater from Cnossus (Boardman 1998: fig. 22). Linen corselets were clearly known to the Greeks (cf. Hom. Il. 2.527–530; 2.828–834), but written sources do not attest to their actual use until Iphicrates’s fourth-century peltast reforms (Nep. Iphic. 4). A second-century inscription from Delos mentions a linen corselet for a mounted warrior. The limited use of the linen corselet may have been determined by its high price (Roux 1989: 262; costs: Jarva 1995: 153).
The structure of the linen corselet is not described in the extant written sources, but Xenophon (An. 4. 7.15) states that the Chalybians had linen corselets that reached down to the belly and were provided with a thick fringe of plaited cords instead of the pteryges. The belts (zomata) mentioned in a passage of Alcaeus (F54.5–6) seem to refer to the linen corselets.
According to Plutarch (Mor. 596D) the conspirators who liberated Thebes from the Spartans (379) wore hemithorakia. Other sources, too, mention the “half-thorax” in fourth-century contexts: Pollux (Onom. 1.134) maintains that Jason, the tyrant of Pherae, invented it, and Polyaenus (Str. 4.3.13) tells that Alexander gave hemithorakia to those Macedonians who fled in battle so that if they did so again their backs would be uncovered (SIG 1, 421, ll. 39–42). Archaeological and artistic evidence does not reveal clearly what sort of equipment it was, perhaps not only one-half (gualon) of an ordinary metal cuirass but rather a metal plate made for covering the front side, something like the front plates in the rectangular cuirasses used in southern Italy. Metallic armor, which can be defined even less than a half-cuirass, is seen circa 340–330 on an Apulian vase by the Darius Painter: an anatomically modeled plate covered the belly area (Connolly 1986: 117–18, plates 3–4; Hagemann 1919: 101, fig. 93; Trendall 1989: fig. 204).
The Homeric armor called mitre (Il. 4.137, 187, 216; 5.857) has been identified with the half-moon–shaped bronze belly guards that are mainly connected with Crete, although this identification is problematic. Some belly guards bear incised or embossed decoration. The most significant typological variation is the introduction of a hinged guard which might be a later feature. The chronology extends from the third quarter of the seventh century to the end of the sixth, continuing outside of Greece proper into the fifth (Brandenburg 1977: 119–43; Jarva 1995: 51–60).
Protection of Limbs
Armoring of the limbs was limited mainly to the use of greaves and occasionally ankle guards (see figures 19.2 and 19.5). Finds of greaves come mainly from Olympia, with more than two hundred examples (Kunze 1991). There is some evidence that before the introduction of the well-known elastic type, which was slipped around the shin and calf, bronze greaves fastened by lacing were used (Kunze 1991: 4–5, plate 1). The earliest group of elastic greaves, dating before the end of the eighth century, left the kneecap partially exposed. Greaves were made with small holes at intervals for fastening an inner lining. Before the end of the seventh century the length was enough to cover also the kneecap. In these greaves the side of the calf muscle is articulated by a curved groove, which developed during the sixth century into decorations using animal and plant motifs. Before the end of the sixth century the decorations and holes for inserting an inner lining are given up and the modeling tends to imitate accurately the anatomy of legs. This anatomical modeling prevails in the following centuries. The edges of greaves are mainly about 1 mm thick (occasionally near 2 mm) and the inner parts can even be less than .5 mm. Generally speaking the late greaves are made of thin sheeting. The weight of a pair was about 1 kg (Kunze 1991: 77; Jarva 1995: 84–100, 136–7).
More than fifty ankle guards are known from the Olympia excavations, suggesting that they were more common than the bronze cuirasses. The date of the guards ranges from the seventh to the late sixth century (Kunze 1991: 26 n. 47; Jarva 1995: 100–5). These are mostly 11 to 13 cm high at back and they were fastened in the front side by either holes or small pegs. Such ankle guards may be the Homeric (e.g., Il. 3.330–331, 11.17–18, 16.131–132) episphuria, or leg guards, which soldiers wore together with greaves; such equipment may have inspired the tale of Achilles’s heel (Yalouris 1960: 59 n. 38).
A few finds indicate that some soldiers wore bronze armoring to their feet. Combination of the greaves, ankle guards, and foot guards was rather clumsy and therefore did not become common practice, although usefulness was improved by hinged versions, appearing not earlier than the late archaic period. Foot guards have holes that tied them to footwear, of which there is very little evidence except the famous iphicratides (Diod. 15.44; Alciphr. 3.57) and discovery of the Theban dead at Chaeronea buried with their boots (Ma 2008: 76, plate 6a). No doubt in reality soldiers only exceptionally went into battle barefooted (Thuc. 3.22; Pl. Symp. 220A–C).
Only one original thigh guard has been found at Olympia, while representations in art during the sixth century are numerous, offering different structural solutions, mostly wrapping the thighs like greaves (see figure 19.2). The original from Olympia, datable to the seventh century, gave protection only to the front part of the thighs (Jarva 1995: 79–84). Xenophon (Eq. mag. 12.8–10) and Arrian (Tact. 4.1) mention thigh guards for horsemen.
Finds of bronze armor for arms are quite few and limited mostly to the upper arm guards from Olympia. All these have been made to protect the right arm of the hoplites whose left arm was covered by the shield. Originals and representations in art are limited to the archaic period with the earliest examples from Olympia perhaps datable to the first half of the seventh century (Jarva 1995: 72–9; cf. Euphronios 1991: no. 34), but their use later is suggested by Xenophon’s recommendation (Eq. mag. 12.7) for horsemen.
WEAPONS
Spears
The thrusting spear was the principal weapon of soldiers for centuries. A javelin depicted on an early Protogeometric crater from Cnossus and other examples are seen on Geometric vases. Works of art depict mostly thrusting spears that appear to be not much longer than the height of their bearers, suggesting a length of about two meters or a little more (figures 19.2 and 19.5). A spear 2.22 m in length uncovered in a burial find at Vergina and dated to the fourth century by Manolis Andronicos confirms these artistic impressions (Andronicos 1979: 101; cf. Snodgrass 1967: 38; Anderson 1991: 22). Some burial finds contain two or three spear heads, often without distinction in size; presumably the small and long slender ones were intended for throwing (Boardman 1998: fig. 22; Snodgrass 1964: 138–9; id. 1967: 38–9; Ahlberg 1971: 45–6). In a late seventh-century Corinthian alabastron there is a scene in which the javelin is identified by its smaller size and a special loop intended for throwing (Berlin 3148: Snodgrass 1964: plate 33; id. 1967: plate 27; van Wees 2000: fig. 16). The Chigi vase (ca. 650) surprisingly shows soldiers armed with two spears provided with throwing loops (see van Wees 2000: 136; cf. Anderson 1991: 19), but even the spears of the men in action are grasped in thrusting positions and no loops are noted. Hoplites, however, could throw spears, as Diodorus (15.86.4) tells how Epaminondas, attacking with a picked force, hurled his spear at his Spartan opposite number. Normally, it was light-armed troops who used javelins (Thuc. 1.49; 3.98).
Among the spearheads from Olympia, iron is the prevailing material, with approximately 350 examples, of which 145 smaller ones are classified as javelin heads. The longer heads range from over 50 cm to 25 cm. There are also about one hundred bronze heads of which some smaller ones are obviously from javelins (Baitinger 2001: 143–89, plates 14–43). The use of bronze and thin iron heads may find explanation in Polybius’s (6.22) comment on Roman spearheads that such arms bent easily and thus could not be hurled back.
Written evidence, representations in art, and finds from excavations witness the use of metal reinforcement (sauroter, also storax: the so-called “lizard-sticker”) in the butt end of the thrusting spear in the archaic and classical periods. It had several different functions, including protection of the wood end of the spear against splitting and decay, a counterbalance to the spearhead, but especially as a reserve weapon when the spear broke in battle. The sauroteres form a notable group among the finds from Olympia, with some two hundred pieces, mostly in bronze with a length around 30 to 40 cm. Victor Hanson suggests that the adoption of the sauroter was a technological reaction to increased massed fighting (Baitinger 2001: 54–72, plates 44–58; Hanson 1991: 71–2).
The weight of the spearheads from Olympia varies from about 0.12 to 0.95 kg with an average of approximately .35 kg. M. M. Markle has calculated that a cornel wood shaft of one inch diameter for an eight-foot-long spear would weigh about .9 kg, whereas the typical late archaic four-sided bronze sauroteres discovered at Olympia vary greatly in weight, with an average of about .4 kg. The average weight for a typical hoplite spear would then appear to be around 1.5 to 2 kg.
Several sources (Thphr. CP 3.12.2; Polyaenus, Strat. 2.29.2) report that the Macedonians used the much longer sarissa after circa 300. Markle has argued that the sarissa was first used at Chaeronea by Philip II’s cavalry and only adopted later by the infantry in the time of Alexander. He has calculated that the long sarissas (4.57 and 5.49 m) published by Andronicos from Vergina weighed respectively 5.5 and 6.5 kg, supposing that they were tipped with an iron head (1.235 kg) and butt (1.07 kg).11
Swords
Iron swords are fairly rare (hardly twenty examples) among the finds from Olympia, which suggests that not all soldiers carried one. In art the sword is rather a norm in hoplite equipment, but there are noteworthy exceptions, for example, the Chigi vase. The quantity of swords from Olympia, datable between the Geometric and the classical periods, is not much different from that of the bronze cuirasses (Baitinger 2001: 74, 232–5, nos. 1305–30). Is this an indication of similar limitations related to social and military aspects?
The common Bronze Age type, a long cut-and-thrust sword provided with flanges in the hilt and two outwarding pommel projections, made from iron and sometimes bronze, continued through the Dark Age (Snodgrass 1964: Type I [Naue II]). The finds from Olympia and depictions in art (figure 19.2), in which the handguard is seen to curve on the shoulder of the blade, suggest that its use continued into the sixth century. Another early sword often seen in art, and known also from Olympia, is provided with a rounded half-moon–like pommel (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993: 162; Baitinger 2001: 76, plate 67, no. 1305). The prominent hilt pommels could have a practical role: to prevent the sword slipping out of the hand in a cut.
During the Protogeometric and Geometric periods the length of sword blades varies notably, from about 45 to 110 cm. All were probably used as cut-and-thrust weapons. In contemporary burials there are visible regional differences, but the sword is often the only weapon and sometimes seems to be an alternative for a spear. In burials dated to about 700, long swords, 80 to 90 cm, are common, but in the seventh century the measures tend to be in the range of 50 to 60 cm (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993: 115–17, 152, plates 32–5, 52–7). The shortening of the blades may reflect adaptation of swords to the needs of hoplite fighting, where it was a secondary weapon, and used rather for thrusts and stabs than cutting blows.
In the course of the sixth century a new type of sword appears with a relatively narrow blade, slightly widening near the tip, and generally around 50 to 60 cm long (figure 19.1). The prominent pommel is abandoned, the hilt now protected by a broad handguard. This design remained essentially in use until the Hellenistic period (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993: 118–21, plates 55–7), as seen in the sumptuous sword from the famous royal tomb in Vergina (Andronicos 1984: 144–5, fig. 99–101). The introduction of the broad handguard seems to be a further adaptation of the sword in hoplite fighting: not only did it protect better against the blows of the opponent, but it also gave effective support in thrusting. According to Diodorus (15.44.3; see also Nep. Iphic. 1.4), Iphicrates made the swords of peltasts almost twice as long as those of the hoplites, but it is difficult to see such a radical change in the surviving samples.
In fifth-century red-figure vase paintings, warriors are often provided with a one-edged sword, machaira or kopis, recommended by Xenophon (Eq. mag. 12.11) as the preferred weapon for a horseman (figure 19.5). It appears already in Athenian black-figure vase painting of the sixth century. An example has been found at Borova (Albania) in a burial dated to the late seventh or early sixth century, suggesting a northern origin for this weapon, but noteworthy early evidence comes also from Lydia and Etruria and Pollux (Poll. Onom. 1.149) calls the machaira Celtic. The length of these seems to be about 50 to 70 cm, but artistic testimony depicts shorter ones too. The evidence suggests that in most cases the weight did not exceed 1 kg and with a scabbard it would have been around 1.5 to 2 kg (Jarva 1995: 138). Both Xenophon and vase paintings reveal that Greeks and Persians alike fought with the machaira (Xen. An. 1.8.6).12
In some Geometric vases soldiers carry what appear to be daggers, and in Dark Age burials daggers occur together with spearheads. In contrast to written evidence (e.g., Diod. 14.43.2; Xen. Ages. 2.14), only two daggers have come to light in the Olympia excavations, but it is not certain whether these were used by soldiers (Ahlberg 1971: 21–3, figs.19–24; Snodgrass 1967: 38. Olympia: Baitinger 2001: 75). Pollux (Onom. 1.149) mentions the Laconian dagger, perhaps illustrated in an Attic tombstone of the late fifth century (see above figure 6.2).
Effectiveness
Polybius’s statement (18.29.1) regarding the effectiveness of the phalanx is quite convincing: nothing could resist it if it was properly organized. The effectiveness of weapons is reflected in the figures regarding casualties in ancient battles despite the problematic nature of our sources. The losses of the Persian army in the Persian Wars were incredibly high: at Plataea not even three thousand out of three hundred thousand survived (Hdt. 9.70). The number of those killed in hoplite battles varied between hundreds and thousands. Peter Krentz has calculated that in battles of the fifth and fourth centuries, the mean number of killed was about 5 percent among the winners and about 14 percent among the defeated (Krentz 1985: 13; on wounds see Salazar, 294–311).
Yet Henry Blyth has found in an examination of armor discovered at Olympia that damage to these was relatively rare. Accordingly, the main explanation for casualties would appear to be blows that found gaps in the defensive armor that offered less than complete protection. Exceptionally, the iron breastplate of Demetrius Poliorcetes, weighing not less than 15 kg, suffered only a scratch from a catapult shot discharged at a distance of twenty paces (Plut. Demetr. 21.3). Blyth has also estimated that blows with spears and swords in close fighting were normally limited to energies between thirty and sixty joules, whereas the energy of a Persian arrow at a distance of 50 m would have been about thirty joules and that of Scythian arrows somewhat less. Arrows then would not have been a serious threat to an armor of 1 mm or more in thickness. Curved surfaces of armor were more effective than flat ones (Blyth 1977: 30, 62–3, 80–5, 192–3).
In the Iliad several accounts are found that suggest that not even multiple defense was enough: the Trojan Sokos wounded Odysseus seriously when he pushed his spear through Odysseus’s shield and breastplate (Il. 11.434–438, 4.135–136). Homer (Il. 4.525–526) and Tyrtaeus (7.21–26 [Diehl]) mention wounds in the lower body, describing warriors with serious abdominal wounds, others holding their genitals in their hands. Xenophon (An. 2.532–33) gives a similar picture, and the theme is also recorded in vase paintings (Amyx 1988: plate 20, 1). The rounded features of greaves offer small targets for offensive arms and Blyth (1977: 83) has noted scars in some greaves from Olympia, but generally there are few signs of damage.
The shield, the main defense of the hoplites, did not hold out against the strongest blows. According to Blyth, the effectiveness of the hoplite shield came mostly from its wood core while a thin layer of bronze sheeting afforded some additional protection (Blyth 1982: 18; id. 1977: 189–90). Xenophon (An. 4.1.18) tells how the Spartan Leonymus was killed by an arrow shot through his shield and spolas, and Plutarch mentions how the Athenian Chares (Pel. 2.3) and Spartan Brasidas (Eth. 219 C-D) were wounded by spears penetrating their shields. Vase painters also depict shields perforated by arrows.13 Perhaps the shield was not designed to repel every blow completely since it was held away from the body.
The Iliad tells that many times the helmet failed to protect its owner. Sometimes it broke (e.g., Il. 11.95–96; 17.292–295), while in other cases we have the impression that the helmet was open-faced which allowed fatal injury from a stone (16.411–413; 577–578). In archaic helmets from Olympia there are many with dents, perhaps the result of stones. The thickness of the helmets, usually around 1 to 1.2 mm (except the nose guards which were up to 6 to 8 mm), obviously was enough against most blows. Blyth has concluded that the annealed bronze gave toughness and provided better resistance than might be expected. In some late seventh and early sixth century Corinthian helmets the bronze is thicker, especially over the nose and the forehead, more than is needed against penetration by any of the weapons of the time. This may reflect the growing intensity of close-quarter fighting. By contrast, in the case of lighter, late archaic helmets, tougher construction enchanced resistance and also allowed the increasing mobility noted above.14 From the mid-sixth century there is a tendency to provide helmets with ear openings, which surely reflects responses to fighting conditions. A natural explanation might be the need to hear officers’ commands which reflects developments in tactics and battle mechanics. Openings for the ears led to helmet designs with hinged cheekpieces, which brought some relief in hot weather, a problem solved by users of the late Corinthian helmets who simply pushed their helmets up and over their foreheads.
The Thracian peak helmet had several innovative characteristics which included better vision as noted above. Additionally, it offered enhanced acoustic features and a peak which not only sheltered against sunshine, but also rain (see Thuc. 2.4, 6.70.1). Moreover, it seems to have been fashioned with a thought of protecting against missiles, particularly arrows.
Breastplates, as Homer tells, also broke in battle. Their material is rarely mentioned, as in the case of Othryoneus’s bronze cuirass (Il. 13.371–372; see also 13.397–399). In vase paintings, bronze cuirasses are also shown pierced. The medium thickness of the Argos cuirass (about 2 mm) is exceptionally great, the norm often less than half of that, which indicates that piercing was possible. The cavalry cuirasses of the fourth century tend to be a little thicker than the archaic cuirasses in general. Belly guards, too, are mainly less than 1 mm thick.15
Perforation of the shoulder-piece corselet is represented quite often on vase paintings. Experiments conducted at Cambridge show that leather must have been considered a rival material for defensive armor. The front of the leather corselet had two layers and thus would have afforded adequate protection (Euphronios 1991, no. 13; Coles 1962: 184–5; Blyth 1977: 190; Jarva 1995: 143).
A special case is the protection offered by the linen corselet. Pausanias (1.21.7) criticizes its military value against strong blows. A more positive picture is given by Aelian (NA 9.17), who praised the linen corselet for its resistance to iron (Plin. HN 19.2.11, says the linen nets of Cumae could bend a knife blade). In any case, the advantages of the linen corselet—light and porous—were appreciated. The use of linen in many layers was one possible method for making linen corselets more resistant, and this seems to be the case with the fourteen-layer linen piece discovered at Mycenae (Studniczka 1887: 21–4, fig. 4). From the Byzantine period we have information that effectiveness could be increased by a mixture of vinegar and salt (Törnkvist 1969: 81–2). It seems possible that fourteen layers or a little more, arriving to a thickness of about 1.5 cm, could give a protection comparable with bronze and leather breastplates. The necessary thickness could be achieved also by using in the corselet threads multiplied so many times that the woven structure became thick enough. This kind of twilled fabric may be indicated in some vase paintings, even those representing Persian and other eastern warriors (see further Blyth 1977: 119, table 4.9; Jarva 1995: 43, 142–3 n. 1007).
Victory on the battlefield was sought not only by effective weapons and armor. The depth of a formation could inflict psychological pressure on opponents, while shield blazons presented terrifying, apotropaic warnings (Nefedkin 2002; van Wees 2004: 191; Anderson: 17–20). Such features are evident too in the reforms attributed to Lycurgus of Sparta (Xen. Lac. 11.3): a red cloak, because it had least resemblance to women’s clothing, a bronze shield, because once polished it tarnishes slowly, and permission for older men to wear their hair long so as to make them look taller, more dignified, and more terrifying. Helmet crests similarly made men taller, but the use of high crests may be exaggerated in artistic representations (Jackson 1991: 235).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABV = Beazley, J. D. 1956. Attic black-figure vase-Painters. Oxford.
Add = Beazley, J.D. 1982, 1989. Beazley addenda. Additional references to ABV, ARV2, and Paralipomena (first ed. by L. Burn and R. Glynn; 2d ed. by T. H. Carpenter). Oxford.
ARV = Beazley, J.D. 1963. Attic red-figure vase-painters I–III. Oxford.
CVA = Corpus vasorum antiquorum. Paris and elsewhere, 1923–
Para = Beazley, J. D. 1971. Paralipomena. Additions to the attic black-figure and red-figure vase-painters. Oxford.
Ahlberg, G. 1971. Fighting on land and sea in Greek geometric art. Stockholm.
Amyx, D. A. 1988. Corinthian vase painting. Berkeley.
Anderson, J. K. 1991. “Hoplite weapons and offensive arms,” in Hanson 1991: 15–37.
Andronicos, M. 1979. “Sarissa.” BCH 94: 91–107.
———. 1984. Vergina: The royal tombs and the ancient city. Athens.
Baitinger, H. 2001. Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia. Olympische Forschungen XXIX. Berlin.
Berger, E. (ed.). 1982. Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig. II. Terrakotten und Bronzen. Basel.
Best, J. G. P. 1969. Thracian peltasts and their influence on Greek warfare. Groningen.
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos: fouilles et recherches 1902–1914. 1,1. Les petit objets. Berlin.
Blyth, P. H. 1977. The effectiveness of Greek armor against arrows in the Persian War (490–479 B.C.): An interdisciplinary study. Diss., University of Reading.
———. 1982. “The structure of a hoplite shield in the Museo Gregoriano Etrusco.” BMMP 3: 5–21.
———. 1988. “Metallurgy of bronze armor. Use of work hardening in the late Corinthian helmet as evidence of mastery of material.” Πρακτικ
του XII Διεθνο
ς Συνεδρ
ου Κλασικ
ς Αρχαιολογας, Αθνα 4–10 Σεπτεμβρου 1983. 3: 293–6.
———. 1993. “Metallurgy of two fragmentary archaic Greek helmets.” Journal of Historical Metallurgy 27: 25–36.
Boardman, J. 1974. Athenian black-figure vases. London.
———. 1975. Athenian red-figure vases: The archaic period. London.
———. 1978. Greek sculpture: The archaic period. Norwich.
———. 1983. “Symbol and story in geometric art,” in W. G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek art and iconography. Madison, 15–36.
———. 1998. Early Greek vase painting: Eleventh–sixth centuries B.C. London.
Bol, P. C. 1989. Argivische Schilde. Olympische Forschungen XVII. Berlin.
Borchhardt, H. 1977. “Frühe griechische Schildformen.” Kriegwesen. 1. Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten. Archaeologia Homerica E. Göttingen, 1–56.
Bottini, A. 1988. Antike Helme. Mainz.
Bovon, A. 1963. “La représentation des guerriers perses et la notion de barbare dans la Ire moitié du Ve siècle.” BCH 87: 579–602.
Brandenburg, H. 1977. “Mitra, zoster und zoma.” Kriegwesen 1. Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten. Göttingen, 119–43.
Cahn, D. 1989. Waffen und Zaumzeug. Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig. Basel.
Choremis, A. 1980. “Matallinos oplismos apo ton tafo sto Prodromi tis Thesprotias.” AAA 13: 3–18 (English summary pp. 18–20).
Coles, J. M. 1962. “European bronze age shields.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28: 156–90.
Connolly, P. 1986. “Notes on the development of breastplates in southern Italy,” in J. Swaddling (ed.), Italian Iron Age artefacts in the British Museum. London, 117–25.
Cook, R. M. 1981. Clazomenian sarcophagi. Forschungen zur antiken Keramike. Kerameus, second ser. 3. Mainz.
Courbin, P. 1957. “Une tombe géometrique d’Argos.” BCH 81: 322–86.
Dintsis, P. 1986. Hellenistische Helme. Archaeologica 43. Rome.
Donlan, W., and J. Thompson. 1976. “The Charge at Marathon: Herodotus 6.112.” CJ 71: 339–43.
Edrich, K. H. 1969. Der ionische Helm. Diss., Göttingen.
Eggebrecht, A. 1988. Albanien: Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren. Mainz.
Goemann, E. 1991. Euphronios der Maler. Milan.
Felten, F. 1982. “Weihungen in Olympia und Delphi.” MDAI (A) 97: 79–97.
Foster, P. 1978. Greek arms and armor. Newcastle upon Tyne.
Frielinghaus, H. 2007. “Die Helme von Delphi.” BCH 131: 139–85.
Freyel, M. 1935. “Un nouveau fragment du reglement militaire trouvé a Amphipolis.” RA 6: 29–68.
Gjerstad, E. et al. 1935. The Swedish Cyprus expedition II, Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus, 1927–1931. Stockholm.
Greenewalt, C. H., and M. L. Rautman. 1998. “The Sardis campaigns of 1994 and 1995.” AJA 102: 469–505.
Greenhalgh, P. A. L. 1973. Early Greek warfare: Horsemen and chariots in the Homeric and archaic ages. Cambridge.
Hagemann, A. 1919. Griechische Panzerung. Eine entwicklungsgeschichliche Studie zur antiken Bewaffnung I. Teil Der Metallharnisch. Leipzig.
Hanson, V. D. 1989/2009. The western way of war. New York/Berkeley.
———. 1991. “Hoplite technology in phalanx battle,” in V. D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The classical Greek battle experience. 1991. London, 63–84.
Hellström, P. 1984. “A Corinthian bronze helmet.” Medelhavsmuseet, Bulletin 19: 49–56.
Hockey, M., and A. Johnston et al. 1992. “An Illyrian helmet in the British Museum.” ABSA 87: 281–91.
Hoffman, H. 1972. Early Cretan armorers. Mayence.
Hurwit, J. M. 2007. “The problem with Dexileos: Heroic and other nudities in Greek art.” AJA 111: 35–60.
Ivantchik, A. I. 2006. “Scythian archers on archaic Attic vases: Problems of interpretation.” Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12: 197–271.
Jackson, A. H. 1978. “An early Corinthian helmet in the museum of the British School at Athens.” ABSA 82: 107–14.
———. 1983. “Some deliberate damage to archaic Greek helmets dedicated at Olympia.” LCM 8: 22–7.
———. 1991. “Hoplites and the gods: The dedication of captured arms and armor,” in Hanson 1991: 228–49.
Jarva, E. 1986. “On the shield-apron in ancient Greek panoply.” AArch 57: 1–25.
———. 1991. “In search of Xenophon’s ideal helmet: An alternative view of the kranos boiotiourges.” Faravid 15: 33–83.
———. 1995. Archaiologia on archaic Greek body armour. Rovaniemi.
Johnston, A. W. 1982. “Geometric squares.” OJA 1: 1–7.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1993. Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien. Stuttgart.
Krentz, P. 1985. “Casualties in hoplite battles.” GRBS 26: 13–20.
———. 2002. “Fighting by the rules. The invention of the hoplite agôn.” Hesperia 71: 23–39.
Kukahn, E. 1936. Der griechische Helm. Marburg-Lahn.
Kunze, E., and H. Schleif. 1938. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia II. Berlin.
———. 1950. Archaische Schildbänder. Olympische Forschungen II. Berlin.
———. 1961. “Die Ausgrabungen in Olympia. Laufbahn und Nordwall des Stadions 1958–1961.” AD 17: 103–24.
———. 1967a. “Waffenweihungen.” Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia VIII. Deutsches archäologisches Institut. Berlin, 83–110.
———. 1967b. “Helme.” Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia VIII. Deutsches archäologisches Institut. Berlin, 111–83.
———. 1967c. “Fusspanzer.” Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia VIII. Deutsches archäologisches Institut. Berlin, 208–12.
———. 1982. “Archaischer Bronzeschild (Nr. 217),” in Berger 1982: 230–49.
———. 1991. Beinschienen. Olympische Forschungen XXI. Berlin.
———. 1994. “Chalkidische Helme IV–VII mit Nachträgen zu I und II.” Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia IX. Berlin, 27–100.
Latacz, J. 1977. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich.
Lazenby, J. 1991. “The killing zone,” in Hanson 1991: 87–109.
Lazenby, J., and D. Whitehead. 1996. “The myth of the hoplite’s hoplon.” CQ, ns 46: 27–33.
Lissargue, F. 1990. L’autre guerrier: Archers, peltasts, cavaliers dans l’imagerie attique. Rome.
Ma, J. 2008. “Chaironeia 338: Topographies of commemoration.” JHS 128: 72–91.
Mallwitz, A., and H.-V. Herrmann (eds.). 1980. Die Funde aus Olympia. Ergebnisse hundertjähriger Ausgrabungstätigkeit. Athens.
Markle, M. M. 1977. “The Macedonian sarissa, spear, and related armor.” AJA 81: 323–39.
———. 1978. “Use of the sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon.” AJA 82: 483–97.
———. 1999. “A shield monument from Veria and the chronology of Macedonian shield types.” Hesperia 68: 219–54.
Mommsen, H. 1975. Der Affecter. Mainz.
Morris, I. M. 1987. Burial and ancient society: The rise of the Greek city-state. Cambridge.
Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg. 1980. Handbuch. Munich.
Nefedkin, A. K. 2002. “Development of blazonry on the ancient Greeks’ shields.” Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3: 116–29 (English summary p. 129).
Ninou, K. (ed.) 1979. Treasures of ancient Macedonia. Trans. H. Zigada. Athens.
Ognenova, L. 1961. “Les cuirasses de bronze trouvées en Thrace.” BCH 85: 501–38.
Petrakos, B. 1993. National Museum. Sculpture-bronzes-vases. Athens.
Pflug, H. 1988a. “Griechische Helme geometrischer Zeit,” in Bottini 1988: 11–26.
———. 1988b. “Kyprische Helme,” in Bottini 1988: 27–41
———. 1988c. “Illyrische Helme,” in Bottini 1988: 42–64.
———. 1988d. “Korintische Helme,” in Bottini 1988: 65–106.
———. 1988e. “Chalkidische Helme,” in Bottini 1988: 137–50.
Reinach, S. 1892. Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien. Paris.
Richardson, E. 1983. Etruscan votive bronzes: Geometric, orientalizing, archaic. Mainz.
Robert, L., and J. Robert. 1976. “Une inscription grecque de Téos en Ionie. L’union de Téos et de Kyrbissos.” JS, 153–235.
Rostoker, W., and E. R. Gebhard. 1980. “The sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia: Techniques of metal manufacture.” Hesperia 59: 347–63.
———. 1986. “Ancient techniques for making holes in sheet metal.” AJA 90: 93–4.
Roux, G. 1989. “L’inventaire ID 1403 du Néôrion délien.” BCH 113: 261–75.
Rumpf, A. 1943. Kranos boiotiourges. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1943. (Philosophisch-historische Klasse Nr. 8). Berlin.
Seiterle, G. 1982. “Techniken zur Herstellung der Einzelteile (Exkurs zum Schild Nr. 217),” in Berger 1982: 250–63.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1964. Early Greek armour and weapons, from the end of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. Edinburgh.
———. 1965. “The hoplite reform and history.” JHS 85: 110–22.
———. 1967. Arms and armor of the Greeks. London.
———. 1971. “The first European body-armor,” in J. Boardman and T. G. E. Powell (eds.), The European community in later prehistory: Studies in honour of C. F. Hawkes. London, 31–50.
———. 1980. Archaic Greece: The age of experiment. Berkeley.
———. 1993. “The hoplite reform revisited.” DHA 19: 47–61.
Studniczka, F. 1887. “Zur Herkunft der mykenischer Cultur.” MDAI (A) 12: 8–24.
Tölle, R. 1964. Frühgriechische Reigentänze. Waldsassen.
Törnkvist, S. 1969. “Note on linen corslets.” Opuscula Romana 7: 81–2.
Trendall, A. D. 1989. Red figure vases of south Italy and Sicily: A handbook. London.
Trümpy, H. 1950. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel.
van Wees, H. 2000. “The development of the hoplite phalanx,” in H. van Wees (ed.), War and violence in ancient Greece. London, 125–65.
———. 2004. Greek warfare. Myths and realities. London.
Vickers, M. 1981. “Recent acquisitions by the Ashmolean Museum.” AA, 541–61.
Vokotopoulou, J. 1982. “Phrygische Helme.” AA, 497–520.
Waurick, G. 1983. “Untersuchungen zur historisierenden Rüstung in der römischen Kunst.” JRGZ (Mainz) 30: 265–301.
———. 1988. “Helme der hellenistischen Zeit und ihre Vorläufer,” in Bottini 1988: 151–79.
Weiss, C. 1977. “An unusual Corinthian helmet.” CSCA 10: 195–207.
Yalouris, N. 1960. “Mykenische Bronzeschutzwaffen.” MDAI(I) 75: 42–67.