Reinstating the Hoplite

422 PHOENIX pressures arekey tothe creation ofinternal unity: remove Spartan pressure, andArcadian ethnic unity collapses. Thequality ofthe papers isuniformly high, though some seem lessdirectly relevant to the main theme than others. Nevertheless, the volume still displays considerable thematic unity, andthe editors have achieved that great desideratum ofconference proceedings: the whole isindeed greater than thesum ofthe parts. Scholarship onthecentrifugal force of ethnicity isparticularly timely intodays world, which haswitnessed the bloody dissolution ofartificially federated states suchasYugoslavia. Thiscollection reminds usthat the peoples oftheancient Peloponnese werenotsimply thepawns ofhegemonic powers such as Sparta andThebes, andthat thepolitics ofethnicity played - andcontinues to play - a significant roleontheworld stage. University ofWaterloo SheilaAger Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fightingin Archaic andClassical Greece.ByAdamSchwartz.Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 2009.Pp.337. Anyone who has beenfollowingthe long debateover theevolution ofhoplite warfare willfind this booka "must-read." Anyone whoisexpecting toteach courses in Greek civilization andhistory orancient military history ingeneral willwant tohave a looktoo. WhileI feel that there areproblems with aspects ofthis book, themain argument - that ourmost basicunderstanding ofhoplite warfare must depend onthe evidence ofthesurviving armour, thetexts that refer tohoplite combat, andrepresentations ofhoplites inGreek art - issound: thearmour andtheshields inparticular tell ushowhoplites fought because howmen seek toprotect themselves indicates howthey expect tobeharmed. Thefeature ofthis bookthat willinterest those whoteach about hoplite warfare isSchwartz's attempts tounderstand what itmust have been like tofight asa hoplite: hot, sweaty, andmost unpleasant. Schwartz divides hismaterial intothree chapters preceded bya short introductory chapter that sets outhisaims, sources, andmethodology. Thevolume isfilled outwith a brief conclusion anda substantial appendix, which provides a catalogue ofknown hoplite battles. Chapter Twodiscusses every aspect ofhoplite armour, beginning with the shield, moving ontothehelmet andbody armour, andfinishing with thehoplite's weapons. Schwartz looks atsurviving examples ofarmour andanalyses howthey worked (ordid not)toprotect thebody. Eventhough wepossess relatively well-preserved helmets and breastplates, thedecay ofthemetal means that wedo nothaveanexact ideaofhow much they weighed. Thelossofpadding alsoprevents usfrom knowing how well armour fitted andtowhat degree blows were softened. Inspite ofthese difficulties andthelack ofscholarly consensus ontheweight ofthepanoply (95-96),Schwartz emphasizes the sheer physical hardship ofhoplite combat for men whose agescould range from 18to 60andwhose height, weight, andoverall state ofhealth were probably lower than that ofmoderns, especially that oftheuniversity students occasionally usedforre-creative experiments (98-101).Chapter Three deals with thephalanx. HereSchwartz considers theevidence for itsdevelopment andform. He alsodiscusses theroleofthehoplite shield inthephalanx andtheothismos , ormass-shove. Thefinal chapter reviews the issue ofthelength ofbattles. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS 423 Schwartz's argument focuses onthe "practical aspects ofhoplite warfare," tothe extent that they canbereconstructed from thesources, andonwhat wasphysically possible for men inhoplite armour toachieve (13). ForSchwartz themost important consideration inthedebate must bethehoplite's shield: "the shield above allwaswhat characterised thehoplite anddetermined hisstyle offighting" (13).Thisconcentration ontheshield produces results. Schwartz convincingly demonstrates that thestandard hoplite shield is ofnousetoanyone engaged insingle combat. Theleft arm supports theshield ontwo straps, oneattheelbow, which limit therange andmobility oftheshield. Theshield isnofarther away from thebody than thelength oftheupper arm.Contrast this with thetarge orsome other single grip shield, andyouwillquickly comprehend Schwartz's point:a single grip shield is smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable and,basically, does asgoodorbetter a jobofprotecting itsuser because itemploys thearm's entire range ofmovement. Ifhoplite warfare developed outofsomelooser form ofcombat, the traditional hoplite shield wascreated tosuit thenewstyle offighting andnottheother way around. Theappearance ofhoplite shields inour sources must bethe terminus ante for thedevelopment ofhoplite-style warfare. Thisevolutionary view isfurther supported in Chapter Three, where Schwartz argues that although theIliadfocuses ontheindividual hero, thefighting envisioned isthat oforganized massed infantry (that is,inphalanxes orsomething similar). While themain thrust ofSchwartz's thesis iswelldeveloped anddefended, I amnot entirely persuaded byhiscontention that there waslittle change inhoplite warfare in the400years ofitsexistence. Thisview isessential for hisargument asitallows him to give allsources from theperiod thesame value.From thepoint ofview ofthehoplite shield, there issome truth inthis position. Yetother aspects ofthehoplite panoply did change: thenoseandcheek guards ofCorinthian helmets become more enclosing until the pilos-style, helmet appears andabandons face protection altogether; various types of cuirasses appear, notallmade ofmetal; some types ofdefensive armour areabandoned. It seems oddfor mentomove from more tolessprotection unless they havedecided that theexpense andthediscomfort outweigh thevalue ofitsprotection. Inwhich case, why didthey think they needed itinthefirst place? Wasarmour being adapted tomeet newneeds? Thereis someevidence ofhaste intheproduction ofthebook.Minor arguments lackthefinishing touch toproduce clarity. Thediscussion oftheArgos panoply isone example. Thiscuirass andhelmet were found together

Archaeology · Argument (complex analysis) · Civilization · German · Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classics · History · Linguistics and language evolution