ABSTRACT
After c. 750 BC as the Greek world was progressively opened up to outside influences, new ideas and opportunities in turn influenced the nature of warfare. Communities in Greece developed as independent city-states, each with its individual system of government, fiercely loyal to its own identity and traditions. So there was no Greek army as such. However, these communities often fought against one another, and consequently warfare was a constant factor in Greek society. The citizens of each city-state were part-time soldiers and therefore armies
planted and the harvest brought in. Now, in this period there were important political, social, and economic changes and it is tempting to associate these with significant alterations in the style of fighting adopted eventually by all Greek communities. The increase in trade and the gradual rise in disposable wealth meant that more people had access to arms and armour of better quality, and therefore more citizens could potentially contribute to the defence of the city-state. Eventually the hoplite became established as the principal instrument of war in the Greek city-states. He was an infantryman who took his name from his arms and armour,1 and when he was fully equipped this consisted of body armour, helmet, sometimes greaves, a large round shield, and a heavy thrusting spear about two or three metres in length. The Greeks also adopted the phalanx formation, in which hoplites fought side by side in close array eight to sixteen ranks deep. When the front lines engaged the ranks behind pushed forward to add weight to the charge. It was important that the phalanx retained its formation and a flute player helped to keep the hoplites in step. The phalanx continued the Greek tendency to rely on heavy infantry and in a way suited Greek terrain by confining the battle to a small area. When one side gave way the soldiers tended to throw away their shields in order to retreat more rapidly. It was unusual for the victors to pursue them for any distance since without cavalry they had little chance of catching them. Hoplite battle though bloody, with the possibility of terrible wounds especially to the throat (from a downwards thrust over the opponent’s shield) or to the groin (from a thrust under the shield), restricted the number of casualties and this was important since, as the army was simply the citizen population under arms, manpower was limited.2
