180 Notes to Pages 91–92
Argos,” CQ 43:1/2 (January–April 1949): 70–78, and Salmon, “Political Hoplites?” 92–93. Cf.,
however, Mait Kõiv, “The Dating of Pheidon in Antiquity,” Klio 83 (2001): 327–47, and Hall,
A History of the Archaic Greek World, 144–54. Oracle: Palatine Anthology 14.73. After reading
note 3, above, cf. Robertson, Festivals and Legends, 147–65, 208–16, who treats the battle of Hysiae
as a figment of the etiological imagination, with J. Kendrick Pritchett, “Aetiology sans Topography:
- Kenchreai and the Battle of Hysiai,” in Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Amster-
dam: J. C. Gieben, 1995), 207–28. Cf. also Shaw, “Olympiad Chronology and ‘Early’ Spartan His-
tory,” 282–94, and Discrepancies in Olympiad Dating and Chronological Problems of Archaic Pelo
ponnesian History, 158–88, who proposes to redate the battle of Hysiae to the early fifth century.
63.Mercenaries as innovators: John Hale, “Not Patriots, Not Farmers, Not Amateurs: Greek
Soldiers of Fortune and the Origins of Hoplite Warfare,” in MB, 176–93, building on Wolf-Dietrich
Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” BASO 322 (2001):
11–32, and Nino Luraghi, “Traders, Pirates, Warriors: The Proto-History of Greek Mercenary
Soldiers in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Phoenix 60:1 (Spring–Summer 2006): 21–47. Aristocrats
pioneer: Snodgrass, “The Hoplite Reform and History,” 309–30.
64.Political consequences of democratization of warfare: Arist. Pol. 1297b1–27 with Martin
P. Nilsson, “Die Hoplitentaktik and das Staatswesen,” Klio 22 (1929): 240–49; Hilda L. Lorimer,
“The Hoplite Phalanx with Special Reference to the Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus,” ABSA 42
(1947): 76–138; Paul A. Cartledge, “Hoplites and Heroes: Sparta’s Contribution to the Technique
of Ancient Warfare,” JHS 97 (1977): 11–27; Salmon, “Political Hoplites?” 84–101; and Victor Davis
Hanson, The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (New
York: Free Press, 1995). Tyrants associated with war, at odds with the traditional aristocracy, and
favorable to the dēˆmos: Arist. Pol. 1305a7–28, 1310b12–16 with Antony Andrewes, The Greek
Ty rant s (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1956). Cf. George L. Cawkwell, “Early Greek
Tyranny and the People,” CQ n.s. 45:1 (1995): 73–86, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 33–53. I am not
inclined willfully to ignore the evidence concerning tyranny provided by Herodotus, Aristotle,
and other classical sources: cf., however, Greg Anderson, “Before Ty rann oi Were Tyrants: Rethink-
ing a Chapter of Early Greek History,” ClAnt 24:2 (October 2005): 173–222. As Lendon, Soldiers
and Ghosts, 402, rightly recognizes, to reject the hypothesis advanced by Nilsson, Lorimer, Car-
tledge, Salmon, and Hanson, one would have to suppose that “Aristotle knew less about the period
in question than we do” because “he had no archeologists to help him.” The critique of Aristotle
along these lines advanced by Hans van Wees, “Tyrants, Oligarchs and Citizen Militias,” in Army
and Power in the Ancient World, ed. Angelos Chaniotis and Pierre Ducrey (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 2002), 61–82, is ill-grounded: both on the implausible presumption that, if Aristotle fails
to provide documentation in The Politics, it is because he has no knowledge of particulars, and on
a systematic misreading of the argument the peripatetic actually makes. The passages that van
Wees thinks contradictory can easily be reconciled with one another—and with the available ar-
chaeological and literary evidence. Before assessing the propensity, now fashionable, to reject the
judgments of Aristotle on such matters, one should consider the care that he took to collect accu-
rate information: see George L. Huxley, “On Aristotle’s Historical Methods,” GRBS 13:2 (Summer
1972): 157–69, and “Aristotle as Antiquary,” GRBS 14:3 (Fall 1973): 271–86. Note also James Day
and Mortimer Chambers, Aristotle’s History of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press, 1962), passim (esp. 5–23). The argument articulated by David L. Toye, “Aristotle’s
Other Politeiai: Was the Athenaion Politeia Atypical?” CJ 94:3 (February–March 1999): 235–53,
for the view that Aristotle’s sources for the political development of most of the Greek cities he
studied were grossly inadequate suffers from two grave weaknesses. It leaves unexplained why
Aristotle nonetheless bothered with the enterprise, and it presupposes what we do not know: that
the surviving fragments of Aristotle’s polıteíaı are representative of the works from which they
were drawn; that Aristotle’s students did not go on research expeditions for the purposing of col-
lecting local traditions in the cities studied; and that there were few, if any, local histories and
chronicles of which we now have no knowledge. Our ignorance today can hardly be indicative of
the evidence then available to the peripatetic and his students.
65. Hesiod’s posture of deference: Op. 8–9, 27–39, 174–285, Theog. 79–93. Thersites’ fate:
Hom. Il. 2.211–78.
66.Plato on the thoughts of an impecunious hoplite ranged alongside a rich weakling: Resp.