#Greek hoplite shield design meanings how to

The last aspect of ancient Greek hoplite battles that historians agree on is the importance of the victor to allow the defeated to gather their dead. This would cause armies and commanders to be extra cautious and concerned with the affairs of their right wing, which usually caused them to strengthen it to the point where nearly every army ends up overtaking the enemy’s left with their own right (Thucy., 5.71).

#Greek hoplite shield design meanings how to

This pairing constantly played a vital role in a commander’s decision on how to conduct the battle as they would often place their best warriors on the right wing (Thucy., 5.71). The threat of an attack on the flank, as seen in the Spartans preparation and debate on their depth before the battle of Nemea (Xen., Hell., 4.2.13), naturally paired with the fact that due to the hoplite shield’s lack in protection on the hoplite’s right side, the right wing of the phalanx was weaker. The depth of the phalanx served mainly to provide the ability to flank the enemy, or prevent an attack on the flank, as well as a more debated topic of pushing or replacing the frontlines. 4.94, 5.68, 6.68), with some exceptions such as the Spartans at Leuctia (Xen., Hell., 6.4.12) and the Thebans and Boeotian’s who averaged twenty-five to fifty men in depth (Thucy. We also know that depth was an important part of the hoplite phalanx with most phalanxes being eight men deep (Thucy. We know that by now hoplite armies fought in phalanxes with each hoplite depending on the shield of the hoplite to their right to completely protect themselves as the hoplite shield covered the left half of their body more than the right. The average length was about eight men deep, and cavalry and light armed troops would accompany the phalanx. The typical Greek phalanx consisted of hoplites in a mass formation with all depending on their fellow hoplites around them.

This article will argue that Greek phalanxes were generally more open than most historians claim, and that the othismos was not one mass shove that determined the outcome of the battle, rather it was meant figuratively as the continual gaining and losing ground of an army. The specifics, mainly the push ( othismos) the actual formation of the phalanx and spacing, are debated among historians that generally form one of two opinions: the word othismos was either used literally and one massive push won the day, or othismos was used figurately and referred to the gradual gain and loss of ground during combat. Aside from the basics themes of battle that occurred in nearly every ancient Greek battle, the purpose for the outcome and the victory of one army over another is debatable.

However, these reconstructions and ideas on how battles were fought are highly debated among scholars. By examining the primary sources, mainly Thucydides and Xenophon, historians are able to reconstruct the basics of the battles conducted in these two centuries. There is much debate and ambiguity about what actually happened when two Greek hoplite armies met on the battlefield in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, specifically what determined one hoplite army to win over the other. The Chigi Vase is from the seventh century BC and helps us better understand how Greeks fought, and is also a major source of contention among historians, however this article focuses primarily on the fourth century so the vase is a bit more accurate