political, social, and economic center for the surrounding
countryside and its dependent towns and villages. In con-
junction with these changes, royal government disappeared
and was replaced by aristocratic rule and a political structure
consisting of magistrates, council, and assembly. Th e higher
population of these communities as well as their greater
wealth allowed them to mobilize far more resources for war
than had been possible earlier.
Th ese profound developments in Greek society provided
the context for a momentous change in warfare. Th e decisive
arm on Greek battlefi elds over the next four centuries was
to become the heavily armored infantryman (hoplite) us-
ing the heavy thrusting spear as his main off ensive weapon
and fi ghting in a dense, rectangular phalanx formation. Th is
transition was accompanied by changes in equipment. Metal
helmets, corselets (armor covering the torso), and a new type
of shield appear. Hoplites were drawn from the better-off
farmers and landowners and served at their own expense.
Mass, weight, depth, and cooperation among the members
of the phalanx became the decisive elements in this simple
type of warfare in which masses of heavily armed men en-
gaged each other on fl at, level plains. It was a form of warfare
developed to protect a city’s agricultural land on which it
depended for its food supply. Th e short, sharp engagements
and the ample defensive equipment were designed to limit
warfare’s destructive eff ects.
Th ese developments were limited to central and southern
Greece. Elsewhere older forms of warfare persisted. Whatever
the connection between these developments and political
change, it was only in areas where the city-state was com-
mon that hoplite warfare came to dominate. Th e evidence
does not permit a fi rm date to be assigned to the development
and spread of this type of warfare. Elements of the equipment
that later became typical appear around 700 b.c.e. and the
fi rst portrayals on pottery of warriors in a phalanx-like for-
mation occur in the middle of the seventh century b.c.e. A
date around and aft er 600 b.c.e. is reasonable, though some
hold that its full form emerged only around 500 b.c.e. How
quickly it spread is unknown.THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.E.
Th e dominance of this form of fi ghting led to changes in other
arms. Light-armed troops whose main off ensive arm was mis-
sile weapons lost their importance, and their main functions
were now to act as a screen for the deployment of the phalanx
and to aid in pursuit. Contemporary with these developments
in infantry fi ghting, the cavalry also experienced signifi cant
changes. From the seventh century b.c.e. there are portray-
als of warriors on horseback, but they appear to be mounted
hoplites rather than true cavalry. Th e transition to true cav-
alry, that is, troopers who fi ght from horseback, may be as late
as the fi rst half of the fi ft h century b.c.e. under the impact
of the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 b.c.e. Th e fi rst orga-
nized cavalry appear in Athens in the 450s b.c.e., while Sparta
had none until the 420s b.c.e., and few major states remained
without such formations. Th is cavalry was useful for fl ank andrear attacks on organized infantry and for protection from en-
emy cavalry forces. In addition, it was employed in pursuing
broken infantry and in protecting foraging parties.
Th e Persian War of 480 b.c.e. marked a watershed. For
the fi rst time a substantial number of Greek states served un-
der the unifi ed command of a single state, Sparta. Athens,
building on an earlier decision to expand its navy, became
the most important maritime power. Th e Greek victory had
momentous consequences. Sparta remained focused on its
supremacy in the Peloponnese, but Athens was able to cre-
ate an alliance against the Persians that within a generation
would develop into a naval empire of subject states. Unlike
the Spartans, who demanded only military service, the Athe-
nians demanded tribute, and the empire became a substantial
contributor to the maintenance of its fl eet and its citizens.
At Athens all Athenians who were between the ages of
18 and 60 and who possessed a certain level of wealth were
entered in a list of those eligible for military service, with the
wealthiest serving as cavalry. Athens was unique in providing
pay for military service from 456 b.c.e. on. Army organiza-
tion was based on units of 1,000 and 300. Th e larger units had
their own offi cers, but nothing is known of the organization
of the smaller ones. Th e cavalry had its own commander and
subordinate offi cers, and the same must have been true of the
light-armed troops, though they are not mentioned. Overall
command was vested in an annually elected board of 10 gener-
als. Normally, two or three generals exercised command on a
campaign. Th e historian Th ucydides (d. ca. 401 b.c.e.) informs
us that in 431 b.c.e. the hoplite army totaled 29,000 men out of
a population of about 180,000, with 13,000 serving in the fi eld
army and the youngest and the oldest defending the city.
Th ere was no parallel to the Spartan army elsewhere in
Greece. All other armies were citizen militias; only Sparta
possessed a professional army. As a result of a unique social
and economic system, all full Spartan citizens were freed to
devote themselves to full-time military training. Th is was an
extraordinarily rigorous training that began in childhood
and continued until the end of adolescence. Th e army was or-
ganized on the basis of age groups and geographical districts
within Sparta. Th is army was far better articulated than any
other Greek force. Th e largest units of 600 men were com-
posed of four successively larger units, each with its offi cers.
Normally, overall command was vested in one of the two
Spartan kings, though occasionally detached forces could be
commanded by other offi cers.
Sparta’s unique military system fueled a policy of expan-
sion that resulted in the acquisition of extensive lands on the
western fl ank. Sparta’s attempt to expand its control to the
north was checked by the mid-sixth century b.c.e., and a new
policy of alliance in the Peloponnese was adopted. Sparta was
clearly the controlling member, and the allies were bound to
follow where Sparta might lead. Despite Sparta’s military su-
periority, several large and important states in the Pelopon-
nese, such as Argos, remained out of the league and were at
times openly hostile. Aft er its initial expansion Sparta’s main
military preoccupation was to ensure its local dominance.war and conquest: Greece 11470895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1147 1147 10/10/07 2:31:14 PM