178 Notes to Pages 84–87
at Sparta, ed. R. M. Dawkins (London: Macmillan, 1929), 249–84, and John Boardman, “Artemis
Orthia and Chronology,” ABSA 58 (1963): 1–7. Function of flute: Thuc. 5.70; Plut. Mor. 210f;
Ath. 14.627d; Polyaen. Strat. 1.10.1, Excerpta 18.1. Cf. Hans van Wees’s fanciful reinterpretation
of the Chigi vase, which resolutely ignores the difficulties encountered by vase painters intent on
depicting the hoplite phalanx, in “The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and
Reality in the Seventh Century,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees (Lon-
don: Duckworth, 2000), 125–66 (at 134–46), and in G W, 166–83, with the much more sensible
discussion of the iconography in Adam Schwartz, Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Pha
lanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009), 123–35. See
also Jeffrey M. Hurwit, “Reading the Chigi Vase,” Hesperia 71 (2002): 1–22.
- Function of aspís: Arist. Pol. 1297b19–20. Nomenclature: cf. John F. Lazenby and David
Whitehead, “The Myth of the Hoplite’s Hoplon,” CQ n.s. 46:1 (1996): 27–33, with Schwartz, Rein
stating the Hoplite, 25–27. - Fate of hoplites caught outside the phalanx: Hdt. 9.69.2; Thuc. 3.97–98, 4.32–36, 5.10;
Xen. Hell. 4.2.16–23, 5.11–17. Hoplite enslaved to his hópla: Eur. HF 190. Cf. Anthony M. Sno-
dgrass, “The Hoplite Reform and History,” in Snodgrass, Archaeology and the Emergence of Greece,
309–30 (at 312–15); van Wees, “The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx,” 125–66; and Peter
Krentz, “Warfare and Hoplites,” in The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, ed. H. Alan Sha-
piro (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 61–84, with Cartledge, “The Birth of the
Hoplite,” 153–66; Adam Schwartz, “The Early Hoplite Phalanx: Order or Disarray,” C&M 53
(2002): 31–64, Reinstating the Hoplite, 27–54, and “Large Weapons, Small Greeks: The Practical
Limitations of Hoplite Weapons and Equipment,” in MB, 157–75; and Gregory F. Viggiano, “The
Hoplite Revolution and the Rise of the Polis,” in MB, 112–33 (at 113–20); then, see Christopher A.
Matt h e w, A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Havertown, PA: Casemate
Publishers, 2012), 39–59, 168–237. Note also Scott Rusch, Sparta at War: Strategy, Tactics, and
Campaigns, 550–362 BC (London: Frontline Books, 2011), 16–18, and Fernando Echeverría Rey,
“Taktikè Technè: The Neglected Element in Classical ‘Hoplite’ Battles,” AncSoc 41 (2011): 45–82.
The arguments concerning what hoplites could do when not wearing the panoply advanced by
Louis Rawlings, “Alternative Agonies: Hoplite Martial and Combat Experiences Beyond the Pha-
lanx,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, 233–59, do not, for the most part, bear on the ques-
tion being discussed here. - Function of aspís: Thuc. 5.71.1, Plut. Mor. 220a. Note also Diod. 12.62.5, Plut. Pel. 1.10.
For a highly plausible reconstruction of the manner in which hoplites actually fought, see Vic-
tor D. Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, second edition (Berke-
ley: University of California Press, 2009), and Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed.
Victor D. Hanson (London: Routledge, 1991). See also Marcel Detienne, “La Phalange: Problèmes
et controverses,” in Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne, ed. Jean-Pierre Vernant (The Hague:
Mouton, 1968), 119–42; Pritchett, GSW, IV 33–93; Wheeler, “Land Battles,” 186–223; Schwartz,
Reinstating the Hoplite, 38–45, 146–234; and Allen Pittman, “ ‘With Your Shield or on It’: Combat
Applications of the Greek Hoplite Spear and Shield,” in The Cutting Edge: Studies in Ancient and
Medieval Combat, ed. Barry Molloy (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2007), 64–76. Although
there is much to be learned from studies subsequent to those by Hanson, for the reasons indicated
in the text, I am not persuaded by the attacks on his assertion that hoplites normally fought in
close formation and that battles frequently culminated in a mass shove [ōthısmós]: cf. George L.
Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon (London: Faber & Faber, 1978), 150–53, and “Orthodoxy and Hop-
lites,” CQ n.s. 39:2 (1989): 375–89, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 416–37; and Peter Krentz, “The
Nature of Hoplite Battle, “ ClAnt 4 (1985): 50–61, “Fighting by the Rules: The Invention of the
Hoplite Agôn,” Hesperia 71 (2002): 23–39, “Warfare and Hoplites,” 61–84, and “Hoplite Hell: How
Hoplites Fought,” in MB, 134–56, as well as Adrian K. Goldsworthy; “The Othismos, Myths and
Heresies: The Nature of Hoplite Battle,” War in History 4 (1997): 1–26, and van Wees, “The Devel-
opment of the Hoplite Phalanx,” 125–66, and G W, 166–97, with A. J. Holladay, “Hoplites and
Heresies,” JHS 102 (1982): 94–103; Robert D. Luginbill, “Othismos: The Importance of the Mass-
Shove in Hoplite Warfare,” Phoenix 48:1 (Spring 1994): 51–61; Paul Bardunias, “The Mechanics
of Hoplite Battle: Storm of Spears and Press of Shields,” Ancient Warfare, Special Issue 3: The Bat
tle of Marathon (2011): 60–68; and Crowley, The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite, 49–66. The