Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:43:11.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The myth of the hoplite's hoplon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. F. Lazenby  and
David Whitehead
J. F. Lazenby
Affiliation:
The University of Newcastle upon Tyne
David Whitehead
Affiliation:
The Queen's University of Belfast
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Hoplites are troops who take their name from their shields’. ‘The individual infantryman took his name, hoplites, from the hoplon or shield’. Such is the orthodox view. This paper will endeavour to show that its basis is inadequate. Rather, we shall argue, hoplites took their name from their arms and armour as a whole, their hopla in that all-encompassing sense; so that the original and essential meaning of the word hoplite was nothing more than ‘(heavily-)armed (infantry-)man’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 27 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Adcock, F. E, The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1957), 3.Google Scholar

2 Snodgrass, A. M, Archaic Greece: the age of experiment (London, 1980), 103;Google Scholarcf. idem, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (London, 1967), 53 ( ‘…the most important single item in the panoply of the hoplite, from which indeed he took his name, was the great round shield or hoplon’).Google Scholar

3 We each conceived the original nub of the argument independently of the other, and we have each contributed ideas to successive drafts (by Whitehead) of its elaboration; but the endproduct, as proffered here, is our joint responsibility (and ours alone: helpful comments and a sympathetic overall response from our friend Victor Hanson were welcome but should not be regarded as incriminating him).

4 See (e.g.) Hammond, N. G. L, A History of Greece to 322 B.C. (edn. 2, Oxford, 1967), 110Google Scholar(‘the Greek heavy-armed infantryman or “hoplite” as he came to be called after his shield (hoplon)’) and again in The Cambridge Ancient History III.3 (edn. 2, Cambridge, 1982), 340 ( ‘developed “hoplite warfare” (so-called from the hoplon or shield)’);Google ScholarGarlan, Y, War in the Ancient World: a social history (London, 1975), 123 ( ‘The hoplite… was defined by his armour. He carried a round shield (hoplon)…’);Google ScholarMurray, O, Early Greece (Brighton & London, 1980), 124 ( ‘The shield, the original weapon from which the hoplite took his name’);Google ScholarLazenby, J. F, The Spartan Army (Warminster, 1985), 30 ( ‘ …“hoplon” …had almost certainly originally given the hoplite his name’);Google ScholarDucrey, P, Warfare in Ancient Greece (New York, 1986), 47 ( ‘the round shield (pi. 27) (called a hoplon, a generic term whose meaning was to be extended to the weapons as a whole and to the hoplite himself, since it was his principle [sic] weapon)’) with pi. 27 (caption: ‘the inner side of the round shield (hoplon) after which the hoplite soldier was named’);Google ScholarHanson, V. D, The Western Way of War: infantry battle in classical Greece (New York, 1989), 27 (‘On the left arm of this new warrior rested a round wooden shield some three feet in diameter, the hoplon, so radically different from its cowhide predecessor that it was from this piece of equipment that the infantryman eventually derived his name, “hoplite”’), cf. 240 (index: ‘hoplon, see shield’);Google ScholarHanson, V. D. (ed.), Hoplites: the classical Greek battle experience (London & New York, 1991), 15 (Anderson, J. K: ‘the great round shield, the hoplon from which the hoplite derived his name’) and 272 (glossary: ‘hoplon (shield from which hoplite derived his name)’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 An honourable exception is Cartledge, P. A, ‘Hoplites and heroes: Sparta's contribution to the technique of ancient warfare’, JHS 97 (1977), 11–27, at 12–13: ‘the cardinal item of hoplite equipment was the large round shield (invented by 700) from which, according to Diodorus (xv 44.3; cf. xxiii 2.1), the heavy-armed infantryman (hoplites) took his name’. The footnote to this then reads: ‘Cf. peltastes from pelte…But in Attic prose only Thucydides (vii 75.5) uses “hoplon” specifically for “shield” (applied to both cavalrymen and infantrymen). The Thebans are said to have used “hoplon” for breastplate: [Aristotle fr. 532 Rose]’. Diod. 23.2.1 actually has no bearing on the present problem. For comments on the other evidence Cartledge cites, see below.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Treating Diodorus as a source of the fourth century, not the first.

7 See above, n. 5.

8 Thuc. does not otherwise use the phrase , and he had other ways of saying ‘while under arms’: (e.g. 6.56.2, 6.61.2), (e.g. 5.11.1, 5.50.3), even (5.55.1). In addition to the different prepositions, an obstacle to Warner's interpretation of 7.75.5 is the definite article used there; the closest parallel would be 4.14.2, but that has precisely the concreteness Warner chooses not to see in 7.75.5.

9 The suggestion has been put to us that Diodorus (or his source?) might have decided to write rather than because would not naturally have conveyed to readers the specific meaning ‘shields’ as opposed to the generic one ‘gear’ in that regard the singular would have served better but could not be used, since the thought was being expressed about hoplites in the plural. However, Diodorus was happy enough to say that peltasts in the plural were named not so the enigma remains.

10 It may be noted here that [Epich.] fr. 275, is classified by LS-J as a general ‘arms’ usage, not a specific ‘shield’ one; that is to say, presumably, is a weapon, not a defence, against the

11 In a military context, tow generally encountered as a substance readily combustible; that does not lend it much plausibility as a protective material.

12 One, drawn to our attention by Victor Hanson, is Polyaenus' summary account (3.8.1) of how Archinos became tyrant of Argos. This has hoplon in the singular as, surely, shield sandwiched between what look like two allusions to hopla as generic plurals.

13 Note Pritchett, W. K, The Greek State at War III (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1979), 261 n. 90 on the ambiguity of (e.g. IG II21425.272, ) in this regard.Google Scholar

14 For Athens see (e.g.) IG II21039.35–6 (and 39), 1043.35, 1048.12–13, 1049.6–7, 1050.6–7, 1070.7–8;SEG 22.111.12–13,25.134.10–11,28.95.9–10,38.1889.7. Elsewhere (e.g.): Carialasos 24.35–7: FD III.4 69.14ff.; IG V.2 269.14–16; IG VII 2711.71–3 and 116–17.

15 See (e.g.) Pritchett (n. 13 above), 240–95; Jackson, A. H. in Hanson, (ed.), Hoplites (n. 4 above), 228–49.Google Scholar

16 SEG 36.1221 C. Le Roy, RA 1986, 279–300, with epigraphic parallels at 289 n. 53.

17 Another Thucydidean passage seemingly relevant but disqualified by textual corruption is 7.45.2: editors for the last 150 years and more have been unanimous in expunging an (incompetent) explanatory interpolation.

18 Compare the tantalizing fr. 532 Rose (cf. n. 5 above), referring to a bronze thorax carried in procession at the Amyklaian Hyakinthia: This is interesting if, as it seems, it indicates an early departure from generic usage. However, much more would be needed to justify any hypothesis that the hoplite's characteristic hoplon was his thorax, especially since Aristotle thought that Theban terminology in this regard called for comment. (What, precisely, Aristotle found comment-worthy is unclear, however. CQ's referee opined that it was the use of hoplon for a thorax rather than for a shield. Perhaps so, given the period.)

19 See in general (e.g.) Gardiner, E. N, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (London, 1910), 285–9 (and Athletics of the Ancient World [Oxford, 1930], 140–1);Google ScholarJuthner, J in RE 8.2 (1913), 2297–8;Google ScholarHarris, H. A, Greek Athletes and Athletics (London, 1964), 74–5 (and Sport in Greece and Rome [London, 1972], 33);Google ScholarFinley, M. I/Pleket, H. W, The Olympic Games: the first thousand years (London, 1976), 41–2.Google Scholar

20 (1) Terminology. Pindar's phraseology (above) turns out to involve no poetic licence, as by far its commonest official, epigraphic counterpart is IG V. 1 1120.9–10 is a fifth-century example (from Lakonia). Literary usage is more varied, with Pausanias a prime case in point: in 5.8.10, in 6.10.4, in 6.13.2. In 3.14.3 he rings the changes with but that is no more revelatory of the meaning of than is Pindar's hapax both describe the simple fact of the matter, i.e. (2) Substance. The actual equipment which the competitors wore and/or carried varied between one venue and another but, in some cases at least, was steadily reduced over the course of time; see the discussions cited in the preceding note. In the post-classical era the end-product of this trend seems to have been shields only at the Olympics (Paus. 5.12.8, 6.10.4) and the Pythians (Syll.3 419.6ff.) at any rate; but again one should not read back anything from that into the sixth or early fifth centuries.

21 See also Aristoph. Wasps 360; Eur. Suppl. 585, Herakles 190.

22 Anyone hankering after a more speculative alternative than this might wish, in the light of the ‘ropes’ meaning of hopla (e.g. Hdt. 7.25.1, 9.115; and cf. §3 item vi, above), to consider understanding as roped-men, on the general analogy of yoked-men, the likeliest meaning for (D. Whitehead, ‘The archaic Athenian CQ 31 [1981], 282–6). We ourselves, however, are disinclined to challenge one dubious hypothesis only to advocate another.

23 See lines 4,24,28, 31 and 35 (where however some would understand as referring to light shields carried by the themselves: Pritchett, W. K, The Greek State at War IV [Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1985], 40 with n. 131). After Tyrtaeus, the next extant appearance oipanoplos is again in Aeschylus (Septem 59, ).Google Scholar

24 We emphasize ‘became’ in view of the cogent demonstration, by Hanson in Hanson (ed.), Hoplites (n. 4 above), 63–84, that ‘hoplite’-warfare, phalanx-fighting, preceded rather than followed the appearance of the weaponry, the hopla, appropriate to it.

25 No justification for it should be sought in the fact that poetic language occasionally picked out the shield for emphasis: Aesch. Septem 19, Eur. Suppl. 1095–6, (This latter passage should be regarded in the same light as the Pindaric one (n. 20 above): it stems from a simple fact—that hoplites carried aspides—without implying a definition.) And note in general Hanson, Western Way (n. 4 above), 65: ‘what accounts for the particular emphasis on the shield in [ancient] literature is the natural Greek notion that its loss alone affected everyone in the formation who were similarly equipped…’ cf. Plut. Mor. 220A.