eventually withdrew back into Gaul. Arminius became chief
of his tribe and a war leader of several tribes. He was assas-
sinated by relatives in 21 c.e.GREECE
BY MICHAEL M. SAGE
Warfare in ancient Greece, though it changed over time, al-
ways spanned the full range of possibilities from small-scale
raiding to full-scale pitched battles. As the most dangerous
of activities, it was marked by formal declarations, special
religious rites, and a number of symbolic acts whose char-
acter changed over time, such as the erection of battlefi eld
trophies, thanksgiving and victory sacrifi ces, and the use of
special burial rites for the fallen.
Early Greek warfare tended to pursue restricted goals.
City-state governments remained relatively simple and lacked
the means to control large blocks of territory. Hoplite warfare
focused on gaining control of the enemy’s agricultural land,
and normally that was enough to bring victory. Greek arms
and tactics were not well suited to siege warfare, which was
the only way to achieve complete victory. For the most part,
warfare centered on boundary disputes, raids, and in certain
cases, hereditary feuds.
It is diffi cult to gauge the frequency of organized war-
fare. Th e absence of sources makes any estimate impossible
from the Mycenaean Period (ca. 1600–ca. 1150 b.c.e.) until
the fi ft h century b.c.e. For the period from 500 to 338 b.c.e.
Athens was at war two out of every three years. However, no
comparable fi gures exist for other Greek states, and Athens
was a special case. In all periods warfare on any scale is the
most costly of activities, and Athens during this period had
resources not available to most Greek states. Sources give the
impression that warfare was common until the imposition of
Roman domination in the mid-second century b.c.e. For the
period aft er 400 b.c.e. there is scattered evidence in the form
of inscriptions for frequent warfare among smaller commu-
nities in Crete and elsewhere.ATTITUDES ABOUT WAR
Th e attitude of the Greeks toward warfare was, as is the case
for most societies, ambivalent. On one hand, war was recog-
nized as an evil. Th e historian Herodotus (ca. 484–between
430 and 420 b.c.e.) blames war for overturning the natural
order of things: “In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war,
fathers bury their sons.” In his Laws, Plato (ca. 428–348 or
347 b.c.e.) asserts that that we should pray to be spared from
war and civil strife and that no man can be a true statesman
unless he prepares for war only as a means to peace. Despite
the misery it brought, war could also be viewed as desirable.
Th e earliest Greek literature that we possess, the Iliad and
the Odyssey, composed by Homer (ninth–eighth? century
b.c.e.), suggests that excellence as a warrior is a man’s most
important quality. Th e growth of the city-state, which con-
sisted of an urban core with its dependent towns and village,and the associated stress on the importance of the commu-
nity, altered this “heroic code.” Th e emphasis shift ed to a
warrior’s contribution to his city in battle, but the signifi -
cance attached to an individual’s prowess in battle remained
the same. Warfare also had more tangible attractions. Th e
normal Greek view was that the conquered and their posses-
sions passed into the hands of the victor and were his to dis-
pose of as he pleased. Slaves brought the highest profi t, but
other items, such as personal valuables or temple treasures,
also brought wealth. It was the capture of cities and temples
that gave the greatest returns.
In politics war always remained an option and was
pursued when it off ered some advantage, especially among
the more powerful states. Th ere was a change in the fourthBust of a warrior known as Leonidas (Alison Frantz Photographic
Collection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens)war and conquest: Greece 11450895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1145 1145 10/10/07 2:31:14 PM