No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
It seems uncertain whether the Macedonian infantrymen of Philip II had breast-plates or not. How much it matters, too, is also perhaps uncertain, though obviously it mattered not a little to the men themselves at the time, whether or not they carried on them that combination of strength and of weight, of moral comfort and physical encumbrance, that a breastplate meant to the man inside it. There may perhaps be something in this question, too, for the social historian as well as for the military specialist.
That Greek hoplites of the archaic period normally wore breastplates appears from vase-paintings, especially those proto-Corinthian examples which show combats not of individuals but of opposing phalanxes: it appears, too, from Tyrtaeus. Xenophon in the Anabasis, when he makes a passing remark about casualties on one occasion, gives the same impression about the Ten Thousand, who were predominantly a hoplite force. But breastplates were not uniform. Metal ones could vary greatly in weight, and there were variants (πĩλοι, σπολάδες) that were probably quite light in metal, on linen or leather. It has been suggested with some likelihood that in the fifth century the solid metal type virtually went out of use. If this were so, then the peltasts of the early fourth century would represent a logical development from a hoplite who had already become lighter than of old. It would seem logical for the pekast to have no breastplate at all, an arrangement incidentally that might suit well the mercenaries of the day who often were peltasts, and who were often poor men unlikely to own expensive equipment. But in spite of their occasional spectacular successes even against hoplites, the peltasts did not supersede them, so far as can be seen, in the citizen armies of the Greek cities. Indeed in the Hellenistic period still, in a treaty of about 270 B.C. between the Aetolians and the Acarnanians, the clause providing for reciprocal military aid distinguishes between three classes of infantry: (1) those who wore breastplates (πανοπλίαν), (2) those wore τὸ ἡμιθωράκιον, and (3) those who had no defensive armour (ψιλῲ). The first class is presumably, still, the hoplite.
My thanks are due to Sir Frank Adcock for criticism and advice which have been invaluable.
page 3 note 2 It is assumed that the Macedonian ‘Companion’ cavalry did have breastplates, like any other cavalry drawn from a class of ‘knights’ or gentry in Greece. Cf. Xen, . De re equest. 12, 1Google Scholar, for detailed description of the cavalryman's θώροξ.
page 3 note 3 Tyrtaeus 9, 26 (Diehl). For the hoplite of the archaic period, Lorimer, H. L., ‘The Hoplite Phalanx’, in B.S.A. XLII (1947), pp. 76ff.Google Scholar, especially pp. 107ff., with illustrations of the proto-Corinthian vases.
page 3 note 4 Xen, . Anab. IV, 2, 28 (with 1, 2, 9)Google Scholar.
page 3 note 5 Couissin, P., Les institutions militaires et navales des grecs (1932), ch. VIIGoogle Scholar, and Plates. See, too, in general Kromayer, J., in Kromayer, J. und Veith, G., Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer (1927), pp. 38, 50fGoogle Scholar.
For extreme variations in weight, Plut, . Demetrius 21 Google Scholar, a passage from which I cannot see how to guess plausibly at what Plutarch (or his source) considered a normal weight. For πĩλοι, Thue. IV, 34, 3: σπολάδες, Xen, . Anab. III, 3, 20 Google Scholar; IV, 1, 18; perhaps Aen. Tact. 29, 4.
page 4 note 1 S.I.G. 3 1, 421, 11. 40ff.: The rates of pay mentioned in the inscription for the three classes, when compared with the rate of pay for a cavalryman (ibid.) show that the ‘panoply’ and the ἡμιθωράκιον indicate two different classes of infantry, and not officers in the same class of infantry.
page 4 note 2 Arrian 1, 1, 8; 6, 2; 21, 1; 27, 8; 28, 6 (with ibid. 3–4); 11, 8, 2.
page 4 note 3 Polyaenus IV, 2, 10.
page 4 note 4 Feyel, M., Rev. Arch. (1935), II, p. 31 Google Scholar, ‘Un nouveau fragment du règlement militaire trouvé à Amphipolis’.
page 4 note 5 Cf. Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 1 (1949), pp. 356ff.Google Scholar, where the evidence is cited.
page 5 note 1 For mercenaries κατὰ τὸν Μακεδονικὸν τρόπον καθωπιλμένοι, see (e.g.) Diod. XIX, 14, 5; 27, 6; 29, 3; for Achaean League infantry, below, p. 6, n. 1. In general, Launey, op. cit. pp. 360f.
page 5 note 2 In the first fragment of this same set of military regulations, published by Roussel, P., Rev. Arch. (1934), 1, pp. 39ff.Google Scholar, ‘Un règlement militaire macédonien’, ὑπασπισταί appear twice (at p. 40, 11, 11. 3 and 8).
In col. 11, 11. 14–15 of the second fragment, of which col. 1 contains our list, M. Feyel restores ὑπασπι- ou χειρι]σταĩς. Launey, op. cit. p. 359, accepts the former restoration and counts these troops as hypaspists.
page 5 note 3 Tarn, W. W., Alexander II, pp. 153–4Google Scholar; Hamilton, J. R., C.Q. xlix = n.s. V (1955), pp. 218–19Google Scholar. See especially Arrian III, 18, 1–2; IV, 25, 5–6; in the second passage, in differentiating between heavier and lighter halves of the divided army, Arrian does not mention the hypaspists among the troops selected for the latter, which does include on this occasion two τάξεις of the ordinary phalanx. (See on τάξιν here, Tarn, , Alexander II, p. 144 and n. 3.Google Scholar) In the first passage both hypaspists and the ordinary phalanx (τοὺς πεзοὺς τοὺς Μακεδόνας) are included in the lighter half, while all the Greek infantry is in the heavier half (ὅσοι ἄλλοι τοῦ στρατεύματος βαρύτερον ὡπλισμένοι…).
page 5 note 4 There is a good collection of the evidence in Launey, op. cit. 1, pp. 353ff.; cf. Couissin, op. cit. ch. X, esp. pp. 74ff.
page 5 note 5 Polyb. X, 29, 4–6; cf. ibid. 30–1.
page 6 note 1 Polyb. XI, II, ibid. 16,1; IV, 12, 3ff.; Plut, . Philop. 9. 1ffGoogle Scholar. (cf. Polyaen. VI, 4, 3; Paus, VIII, 50, 1).
page 6 note 2 Perhaps Arrian 1, 20, 10 is interpreted most naturally with reference to body-armour; but other interpretations are possible, and in any case Macedonians are not specified here. For ‘hoplites’, see p. 4, n. 2, above.
page 6 note 3 Q. Curt. Ruf. IV, 13, 25; iv, 6, 7; VII, 5, 16; VII, 8, 3; cf. Arrian IV, 23, 3; VI, 10, 1.
page 6 note 4 Id. IV, 3, 26; VII, 9, 3.
page 6 note 5 Polyaen. IV, 3, 13. Feyel, M. (Rev. Arch, 11 (1935), pp. 38–9Google Scholar), commenting on this stratagem and its bearing on the Amphipolis inscription, considered its value derisory, and I am inclined to agree with him.
page 6 note 6 Theophrast, . Hist. Plant, III, 12, 2 Google Scholar; Polyb. XVIII, 29, 2. Cf. Tarn, , Alexander II, p. 170 Google Scholar.
page 6 note 7 Polyb. XVIII, 31–2. Cf. Tarn, , Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar; Launey, op. cit. 1, p. 358.
page 7 note 1 Anaximenes F. 4 ( Jacoby, , Fr. G. Hist. IIA, no. 72, pp. 116–17Google Scholar).
page 7 note 2 So, e.g., Jacoby, ibid. II c, p. 107.
page 7 note 3 Diod. XVI, 3, 1–2; 4, 3.
page 8 note 1 Aristot, . Pol. IV, 10, 1297b 16ff.Google Scholar; cf. 1297a 29ff.; IV, 3, 1289b 31 ff.; 1291 a 33.
page 8 note 2 Thuc. IV, 124, 1.
page 8 note 3 Kahrstedt, U., Hermes, LXXXI (1953), pp. 88ffGoogle Scholar.
page 8 note 4 Arrian VII, 16, 11.
page 8 note 5 Arrian III, 9, 2.
page 8 note 6 [Aristot, .] Econ. II, 1350 a 22 Google Scholar (the customs revenue of Macedonia).
page 8 note 7 Frontinus IV, 1, 6.
page 9 note 1 Polyaen. IV, 2, 1.
page 9 note 2 Aristot, . Pol. V, 4, 1305 a 2 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 9 note 3 Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 42, 4 Google Scholar.
page 9 note 4 Thuc. VIII, 25, 1.
page 9 note 5 Diod. XIV, 43, 2f.
page 9 note 6 Polyaen. II, 38, 2.