Читать книгу A Companion to Greek Warfare - Группа авторов - Страница 67

Archaic Greek military equipment has received considerable attention, particularly since the publication of Snodgrass’ seminal work.⁶ A series of modern studies traces the origins and evolution of the main types of weapons and infers that a particular group of them constituted the typical “pack” of the Greek heavily armed infantryman, identified as “hoplite equipment” or the “hoplite panoply.”⁷ This set consisted of six items: an enclosed metal helmet topped by a crest; body armor of different types (fundamentally bronze, but later also leather) but at first predominantly a heavy, double-plated bronze cuirass (the “bell cuirass”); a pair of bronze greaves shaped to fit the lower leg; a two-meter-long spear with bronze ends, a spear point, and a butt spike (the sauroter), which was the main offensive weapon; a short sword (40–60 cm) with straight or curved blade that is usually regarded as a secondary weapon; and a wide (90–100 cm diameter), bowl-shaped round shield (the aspis or Argive shield), with a wooden core and a protruding rim, occasionally covered with a bronze sheet and provided with two handles, a central armband (porpax), and a lateral handgrip (antilabe).

According to the most recent scholarship, the elements of the panoply appeared in Greece from the middle of the eighth century onward and spread piecemeal during the following decades. They appear in considerable quantities as offerings in sanctuaries and figure prominently in the iconography of the period.⁸ The impact of foreign influences in Greek military technology of this period remains debated, but whatever this impact may have been, by the beginning of the sixth century the panoply seems to have been widespread and became the standard equipment of Greek heavy infantry forces during the Classical period.⁹

The characteristics of the different items of the panoply have generated little controversy, except for the weight of the Argive shield and the accumulated weight of the panoply: in the past, both shield and panoply were regarded as heavy and cumbersome, but recent estimates reduce their weight by half, with important consequences for the general interpretation of the capabilities of the Greek hoplite.¹⁰

Discussion has focused on the panoply in action.¹¹ It all starts with the Argive shield: its double grip and its width provide better handling and greater protection, respectively; these qualities are improved by its concave shape, which allows the inner side of the rim to rest on the shoulder and deflect blows. These very same qualities, however, together with its considerable weight, make the hoplite slow and heavy, while the double grip means that the shield protects only one side of the fighter. This shield thus exposes him to attacks from the unprotected side or the rear. The bronze cuirass offers protection at the cost of more weight, and the helmet makes it hard to see and hear. Although a heavily equipped and highly protected fighter, the hoplite is also slow, clumsy, and easily disoriented target.

Given these drawbacks, the hoplite needed to be part of a closed formation, the phalanx. In isolation, he was well-nigh useless.¹² This conclusion led to another: phalanx equipment must be standardized, to make it easier for hoplites to serve together at close quarters.

This scholarly discussion depended on technological determinism: the peculiarities of the weapons determine the need for a particular method of fighting, and that method only. Archaeological evidence for use of the equipment thus implies certain military realities.¹³ Conversely, written evidence for the existence of the phalanx implies the presence of hoplites. Determinism comes full circle.

Recently, scholars have questioned this sequential reasoning. It has been argued, for example, that the panoply was rarely complete (something attested by the iconography) and that the different items could be used in endless combinations, even including controversial types such as the Boeotian shield; as a result, military equipment was not standardized, but could depend to some extent on particular tastes and local traditions.¹⁴ If there was no such thing as a standard panoply, conclusions about the role of hoplites in the phalanx are questionable, as are larger claims about hoplite warfare, to which we now turn.