This is the second part of what looks like it\u2019ll be end up as a four part series discussing the debates surrounding ancient Greek hoplites, the heavy infantry of the Archaic (800-480) and Classical (480-323) periods. Last week,<\/a> we outlined the contours of the debate: the major points of contention and the history of the debate and how it has come to its current \u2013 and I would argue, unsatisfactory \u2013 point.<\/p>\n This week, I want to stay laying out my own sense of the arguments and what I see as a viable synthesis. I\u2019ve opted to split this into three parts because I don\u2019t just want to present my \u2018answers\u2019 but also really use this as an opportunity to contrast the two opposing camps (hoplite orthodoxy and hoplite heterodoxy) in the process of laying out where I think the firmest ground is, which as we\u2019ll see is something of a blend of both. That is a larger project so I\u2019ve opted to split it up. This post<\/strong> will cover the question of equipment<\/strong>, both the date of its emergence and its use and function (which have implications for chronolgy and tactics). Then the next post<\/strong> will cover the question of tactics<\/strong>, both in terms of how the phalanx might have functioned on an Archaic battlefield<\/strong> where light infantry and cavalry remained common and important and how it may have functioned in a late-Archaic or Classical battlefield <\/strong>when they were less central (but still at least sometimes present). Then, at long last, the final post<\/strong> will cover what I think are some of the social and political implications<\/strong> (some of which falls out of the first ideas), which is actually where I think some of the most explosive conclusions really are.<\/p>\n However before I launch into all of that, I want to be clear about the perspective I am coming from. On the one hand, I am an ancient historian, I do read ancient Greek, I can engage with the main bodies of evidence (literary, archaeological, representational) directly, as an expert. On the other hand<\/em>, I am not a scholar of hoplites<\/em>: this is my field, but not my sub<\/em>-field<\/strong>. Consequently, I am assessing the arguments of folks who have spent a lot more time on hoplites<\/em> than me and have thus read these sources more closely and more widely than I have. I can check their work, I can assess their arguments, but while I am going to suggest<\/em> solutions to some of these quandaries, I want to be clear I am coming at this from a pose of intellectual humility in terms of raw command of the evidence.<\/p>\n (Although I should note this post<\/em>, which is on equipment<\/em> basically is square in my wheelhouse, so if I sound a bit more strident this week it is because while I am modestly familiar with hoplites, I am very familiar<\/em> with hoplite (and other pre-gunpowder) equipment<\/em>.)<\/p>\n On the other hand, I think I do come at the problem with two advantages, the value of which the reader may determine for themselves. The first of these is simply that I am not a scholar of hoplites<\/em> and so I am not \u2018in\u2019 one of these \u2018camps;\u2019 an \u2018outsiders\u2019 perspective \u2013 from someone who can still engage directly with the evidence \u2013 can be handy. The second of these is frankly that I have very broad training as a military historian<\/em> which gives me a somewhat wider base of comparative evidence to draw on than I think has been brought to bear on these questions before. And that is going to be relevant, particularly this week, because part of my core argument here is that one mistake<\/em> that has been repeated here is treating the hoplite phalanx as something special and unique, rather than as an interesting species<\/em> of a common phenomenon: the shield wall<\/strong>, which has shared characteristics that occur in many cultures at many times.<\/p>\n As always, if you like what you are reading, please share it as I rely on word-of-mouth to find readers! And if you really like it, you can support this project over at Patreon<\/a>; I don\u2019t promise not to use the money to buy a full hoplite panoply, but I also don\u2019t not<\/em> promise to do that. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on Twitter <\/a>and Bluesky <\/a>for updates when posts go live and my general musings; I have largely shifted over to Bluesky (I maintain some de minimis<\/em> presence on Twitter), given that it has become a much better place for historical discussion than Twitter.<\/p>\n We need to start with three entwined questions, the nature of hoplite equipment<\/strong>, the dates at which it appears<\/strong> and the implications for the emergence of the \u2018true\u2019 phalanx<\/strong> (and its nature). As I noted in the first part, while the two \u2018camps\u2019 on hoplites consist of a set of linked answers to key questions, the strength of those linkages vary: in some cases, answer A necessitates answer B and in some cases it does not. In this case, the hoplite orthodox argument is that hoplite equipment was too cumbersome to fight much outside of the phalanx<\/strong>, which in turn (they argue) necessitates<\/em> that the emergence of the full panoply means the phalanx must come with it<\/strong>. Consequently, hoplite orthodoxy assumes something like a \u2018hoplite revolution\u2019<\/strong> (a phrase they use), where hoplites (and their equipment) and the phalanx emerge at more of less the same time, rapidly remaking the politics of the polis<\/em> and polis<\/em> warfare.<\/p>\n By contrast, hoplite heterodoxy unlinks<\/em> these issues, by arguing that hoplite equipment is not that cumbersome and so need not necessitate the phalanx<\/strong>, while at the same time noting that such equipment emerged gradually and the fully panoply appeared rather later<\/em> than hoplite orthodoxy might suggest<\/strong>. But this plays into a larger argument that hoplites developed outside<\/em> of close-order formations and could function just as well<\/em> in skirmish or open-order environments<\/strong>.<\/p>\n As an aside, I want to clarify terminology here: we are not dealing, this week, with the question of \u2018the phalanx.\u2019<\/strong> That term\u2019s use is heavily<\/em> subject to definition and we need to have that definitional fight out before we use it. So instead, we are going to talk about \u2018close order<\/strong>\u2018 formations (close intervals (combat width sub-150cm or so), fixed positioning) as compared to \u2018open order<\/strong>\u2018 (wide intervals (combat width 150cm+), somewhat flexible positioning) and skirmishing <\/strong>(arbitrary intervals, infinitely flexible positioning). And in particular, we\u2019re interested in a big \u2018family\u2019 of close-order formations I am going to call shield walls<\/em>, which is any formation where combatants stand close enough together to mutually support with shields<\/a> (which is often not<\/em> shoulder-to-shoulder, but often more like 1m combat widths). We will untangle how a phalanx fits into these categories later<\/em>.<\/p>\n We can start, I think, with the easy part: when does hoplite equipment show up<\/em> in the evidence-record<\/strong>. This is the easier question because it can be answered with some decision by archaeology: when you have dated examples of the gear or representations of it in artwork, it exists; if you do not, it probably doesn\u2019t yet. We should be clear here that we\u2019re working with a terminus post quem<\/em> (\u2018limit before which\u2019), which is to say our evidence will give us the latest possible date<\/em> of something: if we find that the earliest, say, Archaic bell-cuirass we have is c. 720, then c. 721 is the last possible date<\/em> that this armor might not yet have existed. But of course there could have been still earlier<\/em> armors which do not survive: so new discoveries can shift dates back<\/em> but not forward<\/em> in time. That said, our evidence \u2013 archaeology of arms buttressed by artwork of soldiers \u2013 is fairly decent and it would be a major surprise if any of these dates shifted by more than a decade or two.<\/p>\n (An aside before I go further: I am focused here mostly on the when<\/em> of hoplite equipment. There is also a really interesting question of the where<\/em> of early hoplite equipment. Older hoplite orthodox scholars assumed hoplite equipment emerged in Greece ex nihilo<\/em> and was peculiar to the Greeks, but this vision has been challenged and I think is rightly challenged (by, e.g. J. Brouwers, Henchmen of Ares<\/em> (2013), reviewed favorably by Sean Manning here<\/a>). In particular, the fact that a lot<\/em> of our evidence comes from either Southern Italy or Anatolia is not always well appreciated in these debates. We don\u2019t have the space to untangle those arguments (and I am not versed enough on the eastern side) but it is well worth remembering that Archaic Greece was not culturally isolated<\/em> and that influences eastern and western are easy to demonstrate.)<\/p>\n And what our evidence suggests is that Anthony Snodgrass was right<\/strong>: hoplite equipment emerges peicemeal and gradually<\/strong> (and were adopted even slower), not all at once and did so well before we have evidence by any other metric for fighting in the phalanx (which comes towards the end of the equipment\u2019s developmental timeline).<\/p>\n The earliest piece of distinctively hoplite equipment that we see in artwork is the circular aspis<\/em>, which starts showing up around c. 750, but takes a long time to displace other, lighter shield forms<\/strong>, only pushing out these other types in artwork (Diplyon shields with \u2018carve outs\u2019 on either side giving them a figure-8 design, squarish shields, center-grip shields) in the back half of the 600s. Metal helmets begin appearing first in the late 8th century (a couple of decades behind the earliest aspides<\/em>), with the oldest type being the open-faced Kegelhelm, which evolved into the also open-faced \u2018Illyrian<\/a>\u2018 helmet (please ignore the ethnic signifiers used on these helmet names, they are usually not historically grounded). By the early seventh century \u2013 so just a few decades later \u2013 we start to get our first close-faced helmets, the early Corinthian helmet types<\/strong>, which is going to be the most popular \u2013 but by no means only \u2013 helmet for hoplites for the rest of the Archaic and early Classical.<\/p>\n Coming fairly quickly after the appearance of metal helmets is metal body armor, with the earliest dated example (to my knowledge) still being the the Argos cuirass (c. 720), which is the first of the \u2018bell cuirass\u2019 type, which will evolve into the later muscle cuirass you are likely familiar with<\/a>, which appears at the tail end of the Archaic as an artistic elaboration of the design. Not everyone dons this armor right away to go by its appearance in artwork or prevalence in the archaeological record \u2013 adoption was slow, almost certainly (given the expense of a bronze cuirass) from the upper-classes downward.<\/p>\n This element of armor is eventually joined by quite a few \u2018add-ons\u2019 protecting the arms, legs, feet and groin, which also phase in (and in some cases phase out<\/em>) over time. The first to show up are greaves (which are also the only armor \u2018add on\u2019 to really stick around) which begin to appear perhaps as early as c. 750 but only really securely (there are dating troubles with some examples) by c. 700. Small semi-circular metal plates designed to hang from the base of the cuirass to protect the belly and goin, \u2018belly guards,\u2019 start showing up around c. 675 or so (so around four decades after the cuirasses themselves), while other add-ins fill in later \u2013 ankle-guards in the mid-600s, foot-guards and arm guards (quite rare) in the late 600s. All of these but the greaves basically phase out by the end of the 500s.<\/p>\n Pteruges, those distinctive leather strips hanging down from the cuirass (they are part of the textile or leather liner worn underneath it) start showing up in the sixth century (so the 500s), about two centuries after the cuirasses themselves. There is also some reason to suppose that textile armor is in use as a cheaper substitute for the bronze cuirass as early as the seventh century, but it is only in the mid-sixth century that we get clear and unambiguous effort for the classic stiff tube-and-yoke cuirass which by c. 500 becomes the most common hoplite armor, displacing the bronze cuirass (almost certainly because it was cheaper<\/em>, not because it was lighter<\/em>, which it probably wasn\u2019t).<\/p>\n Weapons are less useful for our chronology<\/strong>, so we can give them just a few words. Thrusting spears were, of course, a bronze age technology not lost to our Dark Age Greeks, but they persist alongside throwing spears, often with visible throwing loops, well into the 600s, even for heavily armored hoplite-style troops. As for swords, the Greek hoplites will have two types, a straight-edged cut-and-thrust sword of modest length (the xiphos<\/em>) and a single-edged foward curving chopper of a sword (the kopis<\/em>), though older Naue II types \u2013 a continuation of bronze age designs \u2013 continues all the way into the 500s. The origin of the kopis<\/em> is quite contested and meaningfully uncertain (whereas the xiphos<\/em> seems a straight line extrapolation from previous designs), but need not detain us here.<\/p>\n So in summary, we do not see a sudden \u2018revolution\u2019 in terms of the adoption of hoplite arms<\/strong>, but rather a fairly gradual process stretched out over a century where equip emerges, often vies with \u2018non-hoplite\u2019 equipment for prominence and slowly becomes more popular (almost certainly faster in some places and slower in others, though our evidence rarely lets us see this clearly). The aspis<\/em> first starts showing up c. 750, the helmets a decade or two after that, the breastplates a decade or two after that, the greaves a decade or two after that, the other \u2018add-ons\u2019 a few decades after that (by which point we\u2019re closing in on 650 and we have visual evidence of hoplites in close-order, albeit with caveats). Meanwhile adoption is also gradual: hoplite-equipped men co-exist in artwork alongside men with different equipment for quite a while, with artwork showing unbroken lines of uniformly equipped hoplites with the full panoply beginning in the mid-to-late 7th century, about a century to a century and a half after we started. It is after this, in the sixth century, that we see both pteruges \u2013 which will become the standard goin and upper-thigh protection \u2013 and the tube-and-yoke cuirass, a cheaper armor probably indicating poorer-but-still-well-to-do men entering the phalanx.<\/p>\n Consequently, the Archaic hoplite must<\/em> have shared his battlefield with non-hoplites<\/strong> and indeed \u2013 and this is one of van Wees\u2019 strongest points \u2013 when we look at Archaic artwork, we see that a lot<\/em><\/strong>. Just all over the place. Hoplites with cavalry, hoplites with light infantry, hoplites with archers (and, of course, hoplites with hoplites).<\/p>\n Of course that raises key questions about how hoplites function on two kinds of battlefield: an early battlefield where they have to function within an army that is probably still predominately lighter infantry (with some cavalry) and a later battlefield in which the hoplite is the center-piece of the army. But before we get to how hoplites fight together<\/strong>, we need to think a bit about what hoplite equipment means for how they fight individually<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If the basic outlines of the gradualist argument about the development of hoplite equipment is one where the heterodox camp has more or less simply won, the argument about the impact<\/em> of that equipment is one in which the orthodox camp is determined to hold its ground.<\/p>\n To summarize the arguments: hoplite orthodoxy argues, in effect, that hoplite equipment was so heavy and cumbersome that it necessitated<\/em> fighting in the phalanx<\/strong>. As a result orthodox scholars tend to emphasize the significant weight of hoplite equipment<\/strong>. Consequently, this becomes an argument against any vision of a more fluid battlefield, as orthodox scholars will argue hoplites were simply too encumbered to function in such a battlefield. This argument appears in WWoW<\/em>, along with a call for more archaeology to support it, a call which was answered by the sometimes frustrating E. Jarva, Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour<\/em> (1995) but it remains current. The latest attempt I am aware of to renew this argument is part of A. Schwartz, Reinstating the Hoplite<\/em> (2013), 25-101.<\/p>\n By contrast, the heterodox camp argues that hoplite equipment was not that heavy or cumbersome and could be used outside of the phalanx<\/strong> (and indeed, was so used<\/em>), but this argument often proceeds beyond this point to argue that hoplite equipment emerged in a fluid, skirmish-like battlefield and was, in a sense, at home in such a battlefield<\/strong>, as part of a larger argument about the phalanx being quite a lot less rigid and organized than the orthodox camp imagines it. Put another way at the extremes the heterodox camp argues there is nothing<\/em> about hoplite equipment which would suggest it was designed<\/em> or intended<\/em> for a close-order, relatively rigid infantry formation<\/strong>. There\u2019s a dovetailing here where this argument also gets drawn into arguments about \u2018technological determinism\u2019 \u2013 a rejection of the idea that any given form of ancient warfare, especially hoplite warfare, represented a technologically superior <\/em>way of fighting or set of equipment \u2013 which also<\/em> gets overstated to the point of suggesting weapon design doesn\u2019t particularly matter at all.<\/p>\n This is one of those areas where I will make few friends because I think both arguments are actually quite bad<\/strong>, a product of scholars who are extremely well versed<\/em> in the ancient sources but who have relatively less training in military history more broadly and especially in pre-modern military history and especially especially<\/em> pre-modern arms and armor.<\/p>\n So let me set some \u2018ground rules\u2019 about how, generally speaking, pre-modern arms and armor emerge. When it comes to personal combat equipment, (almost) no one in these periods has a military research and development department and equipment is rarely designed from scratch<\/em>. Instead, arms and armor are evolving out of a fairly organic process, iterating on previous patterns or (more rarely) experimenting with entirely new patterns. This process is driven by need<\/em><\/strong>, which is to say arms and armor respond to the current<\/em> threat environment<\/strong>, <\/em>not a projection of a (far) future threat environment. As a result, arms and armor tend to engage in a kind of \u2018antagonistic co-evolution,\u2019 with designs evolving and responding to present threats and challenges<\/em>. Within that space, imitation and adornment also play key roles: cultures imitate the weapons of armies they see as more successful and elites often use arms and armor to display status.<\/p>\n The way entire panoplies<\/em> \u2013 that is full sets of equipment intended to be used together \u2013 tend to emerge is part of this process: panoplies tend to be pretty clearly planned or designed for a specific threat environment<\/strong>, which is to say they are intended for a specific role<\/em><\/strong>. Now, I want to be clear about these words \u2018planned,\u2019 \u2018designed,\u2019 or \u2018intended\u2019 \u2013 we are being quite metaphorical here. There is often no single person drafting design documents, rather we\u2019re describing the outcome of the evolutionary process above: many individual combatants making individual choices about equipment (because few pre-modern armies have standardized kit) thinking about the kind of battle they expect to be in<\/strong><\/em> tend very strongly to produce panoplies that are clearly biased towards a specific intended kind of battle<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n Which absolutely does not mean they are never used for any other kind of battle<\/strong>. The \u2018kit\u2019 of an 18th century line infantryman in Europe was designed<\/em>, very clearly<\/em> for linear engagements between large units on relatively open battlefields. But if what you had was that kit and an enemy who was in a forest or a town or an orchard or behind a fence, well that was the kit you had and you made the best of it you could. Likewise, if what you have is a hoplite army but you need to engage in terrain or a situation which does not permit a phalanx, you do not suffer a 404-TACTICS-NOT-FOUND error, you engage with the equipment you have<\/em>. That said, being very good at one sort<\/em> of fighting means making compromises <\/strong>(weight, mobility, protection, lethality) for other kinds of fighting<\/em><\/strong>, so two equipment sets might be situationally<\/em> superior to each other (panoply A is better at combat situation Y, while panoply B is better at situation Z, though they may both be able to do either and roughly equally bad at situation X).<\/p>\n Naturally, in a non-standardized army, the individual combatants making individual choices about equipment are going to be considering the primary kind of battle they expect<\/strong> but also the likelihood that they are going to end up having to fight in other ways<\/strong> and so nearly all real-world panoplies <\/strong>(and nearly all of the weapons and armor they use) are not ultra-specialized hot-house flowers, but rather compromise designs<\/strong>. Which doesn\u2019t mean they don\u2019t have a primary kind of battle in mind! Just that some affordance has been made for other modalities of warfare.<\/p>\n If we apply that model to hoplite equipment, I think it resolves a lot of our quandaries reasonably well towards the following conclusion: hoplite equipment was a heavy infantry<\/em> kit which was reasonably flexible but seems very clearly to have been intended, first and foremost, to function in close order infantry<\/em> formations<\/strong>, rather than in fully individual combats or skirmishing.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s look at the equipment and talk about why I think that, starting with:<\/p>\n Overall Weight<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I am by no means the first person to note that absurdly heavy estimates dating back more than a century <\/a>for the hoplite\u2019s \u2018combat load\u2019 (that is, what would be carried into battle, not on campaign) are absurdly high; you will still hear figures of 33-40kg (72-90lbs) bandied about. These estimates predated a lot of modern archaeology and were consistently too high. Likewise, the first systematic effort to figure out, archaeologically, how heavy this equipment was by Eero Jarva, skewed the results high in a consistent pattern. Equally, I think there is some risk coming in a bit low<\/em>, but frankly low-errors have been consistently less egregious than high-errors. Conveniently, I have looked at a lot of this material<\/em> in order to get a sense of military gear in the later Hellenistic period, so I can quickly summarize and estimate from the archaeology.<\/p>\n Early Corinthian helmets can come in close to 2kg in weight, though later Greek helmets tend much lighter, between 1-1.5kg; we\u2019re interested in the Archaic so the heavier number bears some weight. Greek bronze cuirasses as recovered invariably mass under 4.5kg (not the 4-8kg Jarva imagines), so we might imagine in original condition an upper limit around c. 5.5kg with most closer to 3.5-4.5kg, with probably 1-2kg for liner and pteruges<\/em>; a tube-and-yoke cuirass in linen or leather (the former was probably more common) would have been only modestly lighter, perhaps 3.5-4kg (a small proportion of these had metal reinforcements, but these were very modest outside of Etruria). So for a typical load, we might imagine anywhere from 3.5kg to 6.5kg of armor, but 5kg is probably a healthy median value. We actually have a lot<\/em> of greaves: individual pieces (greaves are worn in pairs) range from ~450 to 1,100g, with the cluster around 700-800, suggesting a pair around 1.4-1.6kg; we can say around 1.5kg.<\/p>\n For weapons, the dory<\/em> (the one-handed thrusting spear), tips range from c. 150 to c. 400g, spear butts (the sauroter<\/em>) around c. 150g, plus a haft that probably comes in around 1kg, for a c. 1.5kg spear. Greek infantry swords are a tiny bit smaller and lighter than what we see to their West, with a straight-edged xiphos<\/em> probably having around 500g (plus a hundred grams or so of organic fittings to the hilt) of metal and a kopis<\/em> a bit heavier at c. 700g. Adding suspension and such, we probably get to around 1.25kg or so.<\/p>\n That leaves the aspis<\/em>, which is tricky for two reasons. First, aspides<\/em>, while a clear and visible type, clearly varied a bit in size: they are roughly<\/em> 90cm in diameter, but with a fair bit of wiggle room and likewise the depth of the dish matters for weight. Second, what we recover for aspides<\/em> are generally the metal (bronze) shield covers, not the wooden cores; these shields were never<\/em> all-metal like you see in games or movies<\/strong>, they were mostly wood with a very thin sheet of bronze (c. 0.25-0.5mm) over the top. So you can shift the weight a lot by what wood you use and how thick the core is made (it is worth noting that while you might expect a preference for strong woods, the ancient preference explicitly<\/em> is for light<\/em> woods in shields). You can<\/em> get a reconstruction really quite light (as light as 3.5kg or so), but my sense is most come in around 6-7kg, with some as heavy as 9kg. A bigger fellow might carry a bigger, heavier shield, but let\u2019s say 6kg on the high side and call it a day.<\/p>\n How encumbered is our hoplite? Well, if we skew heavy on everything and add a second spear (for reasons we\u2019ll get to next time), we come out to about 23kg \u2013 our \u2018hopheavy.\u2019 If we skew light on everything, our \u2018hoplight\u2019 could come to as little as c. 13kg while still having the full kit; to be frank I don\u2019t think they were ever this light, but we\u2019ll leave this as a minimum marker. For the Archaic period<\/em> (when helmets tend to be heavier), I think we might imagine something like a typical single-spear, bronze-cuirass-wearing hoplite combat load coming in something closer to 18kg or so.<\/p>\n And now we need to ask a second important question<\/strong> (which is frustratingly<\/em> rarely asked in these debates \u2013 not never, but rarely): is that a lot?<\/strong> What we should not<\/em> do is compare this to modern, post-gunpowder combat loads which assume very different kinds of combat that require very different sorts of mobility. What we should<\/em> do is compare this to ancient and medieval combat loads to get a sense of how heavy different classes of infantry were<\/strong>. And it just so happens<\/em> I am wrapping up a book project that involves computing that, many times<\/em> for quite a few different panoplies. So here are some brief topline figures, along with the assigned combat role (light infantry, medium infantry, heavy infantry):<\/p>\n Some observations emerge from this exercise immediately. First combat role<\/em> \u2013 which I\u2019ve derived from how these troops are used and positioned in ancient armies, not on how much their kit weighs \u2013 clearly<\/em> connects to equipment weight<\/strong>. There is a visible \u2018heavy infantry range\u2019 that starts around 15kg and runs upward, a clear \u2018medium\u2019 range of lightly-armored line-but-also-skirmish infantry from around 14kg to about 10kg and then everything below that are \u2018lights\u2019 that aren\u2019t expected to hold part of the main infantry line.<\/p>\n But I\u2019d argue simply putting these weights together exposes some real problems<\/em> in both the extreme orthodox and extreme heterodox views. On the one hand, the idea that hoplite equipment was so heavy<\/em> that it could only<\/em> function in the phalanx is clearly nonsense: the typical hoplite was lighter<\/strong><\/em> than the typical Roman heavy infantryman who fought in a looser, more flexible formation<\/a>! Dismounted knights generally fought as close-order heavy infantrymen, but certainly could fight alone or in small groups and maneuver on the battlefield or over rough terrain and they are heavier still<\/strong>. So the idea that hoplites were so heavily equipped<\/em> that they The Emergence of the Hoplite Panoply<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/1280px-Amphora_phalanx_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_1429.jpg?resize=1024%2C706&ssl=1\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Hoplite_Armour_Argos.jpg?resize=793%2C1024&ssl=1\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/500px-Greek_bronze_panoply_in_RMO_AvL.jpg?resize=500%2C755&ssl=1\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Alexander_Mosaic-high_res_fragment.jpg?resize=683%2C1024&ssl=1\")
Note that there is a second quieter debate about the construction of the tube-and-yoke cuirass which we\u2019re just going to leave aside for now.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Chigi_Painter_-_CVPAP_32_A_3_-_battle_of_phalanxes_-_chariots_and_riders_-_judgement_of_Paris_-_hunting_scenes_-_Roma_MNEVG_22679_-_23.jpg?resize=1024%2C662&ssl=1\")
Hoplight or Hopheavy?<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/acoup.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/1280px-Akhilleus_Aias_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_1482_n2.jpg?resize=1024%2C680&ssl=1\")
\n
![Wikimedia Commons<\/a>, a black figure amphora (c. 510) showing a mythological scene (Achilles and Ajax) with warriors represented as hoplites, but carrying two spears (so they can throw one of them).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nNaturally, in a non-standardized army, the individual combatants making individual choices about equipment are going to be considering the primary kind of battle they expect<\/strong> but also the likelihood that they are going to end up having to fight in other ways<\/strong> and so nearly all real-world panoplies <\/strong>(and nearly all of the weapons and armor they use) are not ultra-specialized hot-house flowers, but rather compromise designs<\/strong>. Which doesn\u2019t mean they don\u2019t have a primary kind of battle in mind! Just that some affordance has been made for other modalities of warfare.<\/p>\nIf we apply that model to hoplite equipment, I think it resolves a lot of our quandaries reasonably well towards the following conclusion: hoplite equipment was a heavy infantry<\/em> kit which was reasonably flexible but seems very clearly to have been intended, first and foremost, to function in close order infantry<\/em> formations<\/strong>, rather than in fully individual combats or skirmishing.<\/p>\nNow let\u2019s look at the equipment and talk about why I think that, starting with:<\/p>\nOverall Weight<\/strong>.<\/p>\nI am by no means the first person to note that absurdly heavy estimates dating back more than a century <\/a>for the hoplite\u2019s \u2018combat load\u2019 (that is, what would be carried into battle, not on campaign) are absurdly high; you will still hear figures of 33-40kg (72-90lbs) bandied about. These estimates predated a lot of modern archaeology and were consistently too high. Likewise, the first systematic effort to figure out, archaeologically, how heavy this equipment was by Eero Jarva, skewed the results high in a consistent pattern. Equally, I think there is some risk coming in a bit low<\/em>, but frankly low-errors have been consistently less egregious than high-errors. Conveniently, I have looked at a lot of this material<\/em> in order to get a sense of military gear in the later Hellenistic period, so I can quickly summarize and estimate from the archaeology.<\/p>\nEarly Corinthian helmets can come in close to 2kg in weight, though later Greek helmets tend much lighter, between 1-1.5kg; we\u2019re interested in the Archaic so the heavier number bears some weight. Greek bronze cuirasses as recovered invariably mass under 4.5kg (not the 4-8kg Jarva imagines), so we might imagine in original condition an upper limit around c. 5.5kg with most closer to 3.5-4.5kg, with probably 1-2kg for liner and pteruges<\/em>; a tube-and-yoke cuirass in linen or leather (the former was probably more common) would have been only modestly lighter, perhaps 3.5-4kg (a small proportion of these had metal reinforcements, but these were very modest outside of Etruria). So for a typical load, we might imagine anywhere from 3.5kg to 6.5kg of armor, but 5kg is probably a healthy median value. We actually have a lot<\/em> of greaves: individual pieces (greaves are worn in pairs) range from ~450 to 1,100g, with the cluster around 700-800, suggesting a pair around 1.4-1.6kg; we can say around 1.5kg.<\/p>\nFor weapons, the dory<\/em> (the one-handed thrusting spear), tips range from c. 150 to c. 400g, spear butts (the sauroter<\/em>) around c. 150g, plus a haft that probably comes in around 1kg, for a c. 1.5kg spear. Greek infantry swords are a tiny bit smaller and lighter than what we see to their West, with a straight-edged xiphos<\/em> probably having around 500g (plus a hundred grams or so of organic fittings to the hilt) of metal and a kopis<\/em> a bit heavier at c. 700g. Adding suspension and such, we probably get to around 1.25kg or so.<\/p>\nThat leaves the aspis<\/em>, which is tricky for two reasons. First, aspides<\/em>, while a clear and visible type, clearly varied a bit in size: they are roughly<\/em> 90cm in diameter, but with a fair bit of wiggle room and likewise the depth of the dish matters for weight. Second, what we recover for aspides<\/em> are generally the metal (bronze) shield covers, not the wooden cores; these shields were never<\/em> all-metal like you see in games or movies<\/strong>, they were mostly wood with a very thin sheet of bronze (c. 0.25-0.5mm) over the top. So you can shift the weight a lot by what wood you use and how thick the core is made (it is worth noting that while you might expect a preference for strong woods, the ancient preference explicitly<\/em> is for light<\/em> woods in shields). You can<\/em> get a reconstruction really quite light (as light as 3.5kg or so), but my sense is most come in around 6-7kg, with some as heavy as 9kg. A bigger fellow might carry a bigger, heavier shield, but let\u2019s say 6kg on the high side and call it a day.<\/p>\nHow encumbered is our hoplite? Well, if we skew heavy on everything and add a second spear (for reasons we\u2019ll get to next time), we come out to about 23kg \u2013 our \u2018hopheavy.\u2019 If we skew light on everything, our \u2018hoplight\u2019 could come to as little as c. 13kg while still having the full kit; to be frank I don\u2019t think they were ever this light, but we\u2019ll leave this as a minimum marker. For the Archaic period<\/em> (when helmets tend to be heavier), I think we might imagine something like a typical single-spear, bronze-cuirass-wearing hoplite combat load coming in something closer to 18kg or so.<\/p>\nAnd now we need to ask a second important question<\/strong> (which is frustratingly<\/em> rarely asked in these debates \u2013 not never, but rarely): is that a lot?<\/strong> What we should not<\/em> do is compare this to modern, post-gunpowder combat loads which assume very different kinds of combat that require very different sorts of mobility. What we should<\/em> do is compare this to ancient and medieval combat loads to get a sense of how heavy different classes of infantry were<\/strong>. And it just so happens<\/em> I am wrapping up a book project that involves computing that, many times<\/em> for quite a few different panoplies. So here are some brief topline figures, along with the assigned combat role (light infantry, medium infantry, heavy infantry):<\/p>\n\nA fully plate-armored late 14th\/early 15th century dismounted knight<\/a>: 24-27kg (Heavy Infantry).<\/li>\nHop-heavy<\/strong>, c. 23kg<\/li>\nRoman Hastatus\/Princeps of the Middle Republic: c. 20-24kg (Heavy Infantry)<\/li>\nMacedonian Phalangite: c. 20kg (Heavy Infantry)<\/li>\nTypical Hoplite<\/strong>, c. 18kg<\/li>\nHellenistic Peltastai: c. 17-18kg (Heavy Infantry, modestly lighter than above)<\/li>\nGallic Warrior: c. 14kg (Medium infantry, assumes metal helmet, textile armor so on the heavy side for the Gauls)<\/li>\nHop-light<\/strong>, c. 13kg.<\/li>\nIberian Warrior: c. 13kg (Medium infantry)<\/li>\nCeltiberian Warrior: c. 11.5kg (Medium Infantry)<\/li>\nHellenistic thureophoroi<\/em>: c. 10.5kg (Medium Infantry)<\/li>\nRoman veles<\/em>: c. 8kg (Light infantry).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nSome observations emerge from this exercise immediately. First combat role<\/em> \u2013 which I\u2019ve derived from how these troops are used and positioned in ancient armies, not on how much their kit weighs \u2013 clearly<\/em> connects to equipment weight<\/strong>. There is a visible \u2018heavy infantry range\u2019 that starts around 15kg and runs upward, a clear \u2018medium\u2019 range of lightly-armored line-but-also-skirmish infantry from around 14kg to about 10kg and then everything below that are \u2018lights\u2019 that aren\u2019t expected to hold part of the main infantry line.<\/p>\nBut I\u2019d argue simply putting these weights together exposes some real problems<\/em> in both the extreme orthodox and extreme heterodox views. On the one hand, the idea that hoplite equipment was so heavy<\/em> that it could only<\/em> function in the phalanx is clearly nonsense: the typical hoplite was lighter<\/strong><\/em> than the typical Roman heavy infantryman who fought in a looser, more flexible formation<\/a>! Dismounted knights generally fought as close-order heavy infantrymen, but certainly could fight alone or in small groups and maneuver on the battlefield or over rough terrain and they are heavier still<\/strong>. So the idea that hoplites were so heavily equipped<\/em> that they](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Hoplites_in_ancient_Greek_pottery#\/media\/File:Akhilleus_Aias_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_1482_n2.jpg\"){kind=link}