Talk:Hoplite

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpinskey17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment II

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Npiselli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted sections

"Greek hoplites wore sandals, except Spartans who were barefoot."

Deleted this section because it has no reference. Also, it is more than likely this was an isolated event, if true at all. It is highly unlikely ANY military force would fight barefoot - especially considering the Greek landscape was often rocky. Intranetusa 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NO other city states did wear sandals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.102.239 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Osprey military history series (The Spartan Army, Nicholas Sekunda, though the comment about footwear denotes hoplites in general) suggests that no hoplites wore sandals, except in winter. Incidentally, I believe the reference to Kratos from god of war in the popular culture section should be removed. GOW might be a great game, but Kratos isn't exactly a shining example of a hoplite. They are depicted on Ancient Greek vases as being barefoot, both in combat and when arming for battle109.152.137.26 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Programming Republic of Perl

Isn't that the camel from a pack of Camels? Wouldn't it be better if his shield were an "I Like Ike" campaign button? Wetman 14:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

wtf? mnemonic 04:21, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Hee hee, very funny. Obviously something developed for Perl promotion, wouldn't be a bad pic if someone blanked the shield, and he met spencer. Better to use something off a Greek vase though, no read need for artistic reconstructions. Stan 13:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Artistic reconstructions can be very useful - it would be best to have both. The image used here is one of the standard illustrations of a hoplite, but of course, it usually has a lambda. I'd upload the proper version, but though it seems likely, I'm not sure if it's actually public domain. Josh

well the current image is unverified, perhaps it would be no different if another unverified image were used. and besides, everyone knows the shield should say Python. mnemonic 09:38, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

I changed the image. This article is about hoplites, not Perl, the other was inappropriate. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"one of the standard representations" isn't good enough. the image is almost certainly copyrighted. I suggest change to Image:Greek_Hoplite.jpg. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 19:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that one is good. Stan 06:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ONE Thought. The hoplites of Sparti were the protoype for the Roman Legion, due to thier skill level compared to other city-states. Now is it assumed that Hoplite warfare is this simple, that is hoplite phalynx warfare. We need to wonder about one thing, in reality land, <smile>. What kind of training does it take to remain a civilization as long as the Roamn Empire with "hoplite" methods. I submit that these and other grown adults were more thoughtful than we give them credit for. Lord knows they had the time to think, what with no tv. We need to consult historians on the subject, we need detailed articles, brief, lucid overviews.

First, the Roman legion was based on the hoplites of Etruria (not even indirectly of Sparta), but changed drastically in early Republican times. Second, just because people had time to think doesn't mean they developed sophisticated tactics right away. They practiced fighting, but since it wasn't done by specialists, it had to stay relatively simple. Noone has ever accused the Greeks of being simple, and I think you'll find most historians embelish rather than contradict the summary given here. Josh

While the Spartiatai most certainly was the best trained, it does not mean that they where better by far, or even the best. The Spartan government was such, so that the city-state itself did not follow with the rest in technology, and neither in tactics. Eventually, the famous Spartiatai Hoplitai couldst not stand their ground against the more evolved tactics of the Theban Sacred band, they was even defeated by some skirmishers and slingers at the battle of Leuktra(?). 80.217.145.164 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I doubt the Romans actually copied the fighting style from Sparta, even though they in some way "got inspired", as they where of the first to have an always standing, proffesional, army.80.217.145.164 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Roman legions were not initially standing armies, that only came about after the Marian reforms in 107 BC which had nothing to do with Sparta and everything to do with Gaius Marius suddenly lacking an army for the war he was elected to conclude. Sakkura 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

^ Romans aren't the first in the west to have a professional standing army. Their professional army is just the most well known. Also, the Roman military was far more influenced by Galleic mercenaries, North African/Carthaginian infantry, and Greek/Eastern Successor-State warfare. Intranetusa 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance of cavalry?

The article implies that cavalry were used sparingly, if at all. Whilst this is certainly true of earlier Hellenic warfare, I was somewhat under the impression that Alexander the Great used his cavalry to great effect in flanking manouevers, and only used his phalanxes to pin the enemy infantry whilst the cavalry manoevered. Is this true?--Xiphon 17:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidently no-one reads this page (sigh)--Xiphon 17:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about Alexander the Great, but his phalanxes were not composed of hoplites. siafu 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The change in Greek warfare seen in the Peloponnesian War was quite thorough and saw a revision in tactics and general thinking towards the concept of war. Certainly there was a shift away from placing importance with the hoplite, or indeed any heavily armoured infantryman. The renewal of cavalry was borne on the backs (pun intended) of the rise of the Macedonians. Traditionally the Macedonians had favoured horses far more than the early powers. Sparta placed favour in the tried and tested hoplite, Athens in its navy (though it did have a cavalry attachment it was used sparingly and never developed).

I think it's worth mentioning that "the 10,000" greek mercenaries of Xenophons Anabasis was one of the first instances of a Greek army using combined arms and employed the use of strategic reserves. I believe roughly 2/3s of this army was Acadian which would make the point that the rise of mixed infantry/cavalry armies predated the rise of the Macedonians. Beneaththeradar 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Alexander he had the benefit of inheriting a highly-skilled cavalry unit. Often his battles required the cavalry on his left to hold a defensive line under Parmenides whilst he pinned the enemy, a gap would soon emerge and he would launch into it. His cavalry won the acclaim, but it must be remembered that no horse will charge at a line of spears, as such his army was very good at creating that "gap" for him in the enemy lines.

Greek calvary was used rarely as it costed a lot to own one. Foot soldier was more commonly used, calvary was named paltast. Peltasts were light calvary and were used more scouting, raiding, or skirmishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Hoplite (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the dreaded "calvary". Peltasts, by the way, were certainly not cavalry, they were infantry skirmishers, meant to throw javelins at the heavy infantry (such as the hoplites) and quickly retreat away from danger. The common Greek cavalry was called Hippeis. Apart from the Thessalian Hippeis Thessalikoi, most Greek cavalry was mediocre. Macedonia used Hippeis Thessalikoi, scouting cavalry called Prodromoi and their elite heavy cavalry called Hetairoi. Sakkura 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Weren't hippeis bodyguards for the king in Sparta? You know in a spartan army 1 mora was comprised of hippeis. and oops accidentally wrote peltasts lol.

The light calvary was rarely used. The purpose of the calvary was to scout, raid or skirmish. Peltasts were used to kill of any hoplite who retreates when lost. They also play a role as support for the hoplite. Helots for expample were just like peltasts when used for war to fight with Spartans. Calvary only affordable for rich people. Since Greece was rocky and mountainous the calvary was no very commonly used in ancient Greece. But during the reign of Alexander he had used the effectiveness of the calvary. The calvary also wouldn't be effective against hoplites. For exapmle, the battle of Thermopylae. The Immortals couldn't reach the hoplites due to their long spears and heavy armor.

Look, Sparta wasn't the only state to use the hoplite. Their system was unusual in Greece, and should not dominate this article. Hippeis was normally cavalry. The Spartan king would be fighting in the infantry along with his bodyguard "hippeis", like Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae. It's true that the Greeks didn't use cavalry much; the exceptions being Thessaly and Macedon. Cavalry was extremely effective against hoplites, but usually only when the hoplites were already engaged. The typical Macedonian system of warfare was to pin the enemy with the phalanx, then hit their flank or rear with the cavalry with devastating effect. By the way, the Persian Immortals were infantry rather than cavalry, so their performance at Thermopylae doesn't say much about the effect of cavalry on hoplite phalanxes. Sakkura 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is "Hoplite." By definition, hoplites are infantry, so the subject of Greek cavalry is off-topic and should be discussed elsewhere. --Dwane E Anderson 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

^ Alexander's infantry were called "phalangites" and were pikemen in the sarissa phalanx formation, so they are no true hoplites in the true hoplite formation. Yes, Alexander was well known for his use of heavy cavlary - companion cavalry. Regarding the Immortals, they were foot-infantry equipped with light mail armor, short spear, a bow, a sword, and a wicker shield. So even these "heavy" infantry of the Persians were really just elite light infantry. In a head on confrontation between heavy and light infantry, heavy always wins.

Intranetusa 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

HA! Immortals never had swords( thats why they were vulnerable) and mail was never invented, it was medium scale armor lol. They were calvary you know.

image

why has the image *again* been replaced with something unsourced/copyvio'd? dab (ᛏ) 17:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The current image is not historical; Hoplon wasn't strapped to the hand.

Exactly right. This image is appears to portray the Macedonian foot soldier after Philip II's military reforms (~360 B.C.), not the traditional Greek hoplite of Attica and the Peloponnese.

The new pike (sarissa) introduced by Philip required two hands to weild, on account of its great length (18 ft. 5.5 m.). The lighter pelta shield was strapped around the neck over the shoulder.

The traditional Greek hoplite strapped the heavier aspis sheild over the forearm and carried the shorter 8 ft. long spear in one hand.

Why is there a picture of hoplites fighting in a macedonian style phalanxe called hoplites marching into battle? Phalanx1.png‎

Many of those images are quite wrong, the hoplites did not hold the spear as if in a Macedonian Phalanx, they held the spear over the shoulder with one hand. The Aspis/Hoplon (I doubt Hoplon is the real name as it means weapon, while Aspis is closer to Aspida=Shield) would not have been effective at all if used like in a Macedonian Phalanx, as it would only be able to protect the left side of the hoplite, not the front (Using two hands, that is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.217.145.164 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).80.217.145.164 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The current picture under "Equipment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greek_hoplite.png seems not quite right according to the text ... The armour in the picture is lighter (maybe) and the shield in the picture seems smaller than 1 meter diameter.

hippeis were spartan bodyguards for the king. And oops i accidentally wrote peltasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.44.36 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The hippeis like the body guards of leonardoes in the battle of themopylae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.44.36 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Immortals were calvary, ive read 5 books on them it all states that they were calvary. Calvary also wouldn't be affective against hoplites. The macedonian phalanx was stronger than the Greek, due to their formation and spear length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.45.233 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A thracian visor on a macedonian phalanx, and a muscled curraiss for high ranked officers. But the overarm wielding of spear means its a Greek style hoplite, also his spear is a bit short for a macedonian sarrissa. The size of the shield is exactly like a Greek aspis size. This is a very inaccurate image.

You guys must be stupid. It is accurate. The hoplite si a Macedonian Hypastist. Yes it is held over arm and yes they did wear a aspis shield. The image is not wrong or incorrect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.156.204 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a Hypaspist,why's the image in this article instead of the Hypaspist article? SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

Hypastpists,Ekdromoi and so on were all hoplites.Essentialy no difference rather then ekdromoi having no armor and greaves.Megistias (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoplites cresent

Does the Spartan hoplite have horsehair cresent inverted sideways? Or is that for high ranked and elite hoplites of Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.44.36 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The typical Spartan hoplite would be wearing a conical bronze helmet (of pilos design) without any horsehair on it. Sakkura 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask that what im asking is the cresent sideways? And no they didn't have the pilos design thats for peltasts. A standard corithian helm with horsehair in 500BC. You know like the cresent is normally in straight, well sometimes they are siedeways. Are the sideway cresent for elite Spartan hoplites or a leader (like polemarch or enomotarch)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.45.233 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic calvary use: The immortal was calvary, i read 5 books on it and they all stated it was calvary. The Spartan military system was very effective (not wierd). They had to cahnge it cos of their population shortage. The calvary also was weak on hoplites. Macedonia had made the use of the calvary more common than other nations would. The Romans actually recolutionised the use of HEAVY calvary, as they too attack the enemy from the side or rear with horses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.45.233 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

^ Please give your sources. The current evidence say that the Immortals were "trained" to be effective horse riders, but they fought as an infantry group overall. The cavalry is NOT weak on hoplites. In fact, cavalry flanks are one of the few effective ways to defeat hoplites...that's how Philip II was able to defeat the "somewhat deteriorating" hoplites of the Greek city states. And you're totally wrong regarding Romans. Romans are notorious for their poor cavalry. The vast majority of native pre-Marian and Post-Marian Roman cavalry was worthless compared to other nations. Even at their peak during Imperial Rule, the Roman "elite praetorian cavalry" were merely an auxillary cavalry unit that carried javelins for skirmishes. The only decent cavalry the Romans had came from axillary and mercenary cavalry from other parts of their empire (Gaelic, Eastern, etc provinces). Post-Marian Romans were primarily good at fighting as a high morale, heavy infantry force. Intranetusa 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

^ btw, "unsigned person," I believe you're confusing the early Persian 10,000 Immortals (who were infantry) with later Sassanid 10,000 immortals (who were cavalry). Intranetusa 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romans had a good use and tactics they had to mainly rely on foreigners to provide calvary... Hoplite were effective agaisnt calvary. They were heavy armoured and also could thrust calvary many time with their spears. Calvary units would feel vulnarable against a mass of spears. Romans was becoming worse in calvary in the later ages, as all the other once very barbaric tribes developed even more into the calvary. Also, no the Sassanid is in a different age. Im talking about the pure persian immotals in the early periods. Praetorians are palace guards, why would they fight? They weren't very bad at calvary neither, youre just trying to exagerate everything to contradict me even more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.110.222 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Philip II made the phalanx differently and used calvary. Greek hoplites were effective against light calvary. What makes you think it is effective against the hoplite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.110.222 (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They normally have hypaspists as light infantry at flanks so calvary couldn't effect them....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.74.28 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Macedonians didn't use true hoplites/phalanxes. They used pikemen arranged in the sarissa formation aided by heavy cavalry.

"What makes you think it is effective against the hoplite?" Because historically, cavalry has always been used to outflank and defeat hoplites.

"Calvary units would feel vulnarable against a mass of spears." Obviously most generals aren't idiotic enough charge their cavalry directly into a mass of spears. They would flank with cavalry and hit the hoplites from the side and rear.

"Romans was becoming worse in calvary in the later ages" Incorrect. Roman cavalry actually got better. Pre-Marian Roman cavalry was virtually worthless, and the only good cavalry the post-Marian Romans had were mercenaries or auxillaries.

"Praetorians are palace guards, why would they fight? They weren't very bad at calvary neither, youre just trying to exagerate everything to contradict me even more"

Yes, Praetorians actually DID fight. They were the emperor's guards, but they did campaign and fought as an elite legionary unit. When they did fight as cavalry, they were merely skirmishers who just threw javelins and were not heavy cavalry. Yes, Romans never had a good cavalry force. No, I'm not trying to exaggerate anything. You just appear to not know much about Roman and Greek warfare. Intranetusa 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Praetorian meant palace guard... Calvary from roman was quite good (cos they hired them from barbarians), but they relied on heavy infantry. Not emperor's guard, senate guards as well....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.102.239 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's cavalry not calvary. Calvary is Golgotha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.69.23 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

References?

There is a serious lack of references in this article. Whoever wrote it needs to address this. There are a number of dubious claims presented as facts. For example, it states that the linothorax is 0.5cm wide (I assume he means thick). No intact linothorax has ever been found, so we can't even be sure how they were made, much less how thick they were. Besides, they likely varied from one specimen to the next. It seems to me the 0.5cm figure is pure speculation. The "equipment" section also states that only rich people could afford to be hoplites, which contradicts the opening paragragh which states that hoplites were drawn from the middle class. It also states that in some city-states, service was compulsory. Could this be only for the rich? If the author has references, he needs to cite them.--Dwane E Anderson 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ur the biggest idiot, linothorax armor was same a though linen corselet. We know how it was made and what it was. Normal classed citizens could only afford little armor and weapons. Higher class could afford more, and comsulsary units can become peltasts if too poor. You think ur smart? You're not u made a fool of urself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.74.28 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> "In the 8th or 7th century BC, Greek armies adopted the phalanx formation. The formation proved successful in defeating the Persians when employed by the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC during the First Greco-Persian War. The Persian archers and light troops who fought in the Battle of Marathon failed because their bows were too weak for their arrows to penetrate the wall of Greek shields that comprised the phalanx formation. The phalanx was also employed by the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC and at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC during the Second Greco-Persian War."

Sorry, but where/which are the references for this paragraph Allslsl (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture of the hoplite

Judging from its Galleic influenced helmet (similar to that of Romans, etc), the hoplite is a late version that appeared in the 4th-3rd century BCE, and not the ancient Corinthian helmets of the 5th century BCE. Intranetusa 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, a linothorax would be more usual for a 3rd century hoplite than the bronze breastplate portrayed. Sakkura 04:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are all fools, thats a muscled curass used for high ranked officers. THe Argos bell curass (bronze) wasn't used. The helmet is a thracian cap, therefore this must be a late hoplite. THis image isn't really accurate. Do you guys think ur good by discussing this topic when u dont know anything about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.102.239 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rambling

This article is very hard to follow at times, and the wording is just bizarre with no really transitions. If the writers really want to convey the differences between Spartans and non-spartan hoplites, then a new sections could be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.206.199 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible errors

"They were the first encounter assualt warriors, in front of saboteurs, archers and rams."

As far as im aware peltast/skirmisher type troops were used in first encounter skirmish type battles, and went before the hoplite line as well as on the flanks to try to cause disruption

Also how often were rams used in ancient greek warfare?

"and both light infantry and missile troops were negligible"

Were they actually negligable, I was under the impression that they were generally numerous, just incapable of being the arm of decision

"[The Aspis] was very heavy (8-38 kg)"

38 kilos seems too much. as far as im aware theres only 1 type of shield that ever got near that wieght and it was both never widely used and also from a completely different era and location

"(in reference to the horse hair) Spartans had it inverted for leaders and file leaders, while other cities had the opposite"

What do you mean by inverted? Inverted could mean with the hair pointing towards the head and the mount/base on top. Why not change it to something like front to back and side to side which is more clear

"In later periods, linen breastplates called linothorax were used, as they were tougher and cheaper to make"

As far as im aware linothorax wasnt as tough as a bronze cuirass, even when utilising brokze reenforcment, also one of the main reasons for the change from bronze to linen was the reduced wieght and thus greater mobility wasnt it.

"Spartans would never flee the battle, on the contrast, they would fight to the death, unlike other Greek hoplites."

Spartans wernt anything more than a normal human and did run from battle.

This should be changed to spartans were raised to never run from battle.

"Hoplites also relied on speed in charge of battle"

I have read a few sources stating that this is false as anything more than a slow jog would disrupt the formation too much

Edits

Removed the info about the movie Alexander, since that depicts sarrissa phalanx fighting, and not classical hoplite warfare. As for the Spartans "never running from battle" - that's false. There are numerous occasions when Spartan hoplites were routed and ran for their lives - ie. their defeat to a numerically inferior Theban army. Intranetusa (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That must have been the exception that proved the rule I guess. Dr.K. (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added/changed info for the hoplite armor. Poor hoplites - little/no armor more well to do hoplites - linothorax, sometimes with scales rich hoplites - bronze bell & muscle cuirass, etc Intranetusa (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Renovation

I think this article needs some work - as other users have said, it doesn't read well, and needs tidying up. I have been editing the Phalanx formation article, which was also a bit of a mess, for style, grammar, logical progression and consistency. I propose to do the same for this article. I aim to link the two articles together better, and reduce overlap between the two. There are a couple of sections in the phalanx article which I think will be more appropriate in this article, and I will move these across. I don't intend to remove any information, except where it is obviously off topic.

I will work on this on my user page (see [[1]], then upload the completed version to the article. In the mean-time, if anyone disagrees, or has any suggestions, please contact me! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Your the biggest idiot, linothorax armor was same a though linen corselet. We know how it was made and what it was. Normal classed citizens could only afford little armor and weapons. Higher class could afford more, and comsulsary units can become peltasts if too poor. You think your smart? You're not u made a fool of urself. As opposed to the person who responded to a thought phrased in comprehensible english with a barrage of 'oh you're so wrong you retard' insults and the spelling of a fourteen year old with dyslexia. If you want to disprove him you need references, and you cited none. Good grief. Anyway.

The references in this article are appalling; entire passages are given at length that are quite obviously the opinion of some historian without a single reference being made. For example, the section arguing whether or not hoplites used their spears underarm and overarm has no references whatsoever, for that section to be at all relevant we need to know who proposed these ideas and where they came from. As it is, no evidence is provided for any of these claims. I'd like to see the Bibliography section get smaller and the References section get larger, especially since the former should never be larger than the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.151.60 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoplon

Hoplon can indeed have various meanings, one of which is the round aspis used by the hoplitai, but as far as I know, this meaning is the one which has produced the word "hoplite" in the ancient years. The reference I made is from Diodorus, when he explained the difference between the traditional hoplite and what is commonly known as an "Iphicratean hoplite", called by the ancients a peltast, because of the shape and size of his shield. Here he is clear, why a hoplite was called a hoplite. It is true, though, that later use of the term is made regardless the shape and size of the shield used (especially true in the Byzantine years), yet the original etymology remains the "hoplon" shield. It seems to me that MinisterofBadTimes disputes that hoplon was never the hoplon shield but I might be wrong. GK1973 (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the reason that hoplites are so-called is because the Ancient Greeks called them that; hoplitai, with the literal meaning 'armoured', but also rendered 'heavily-armoured', or 'heavy-infantry'. Compare the English version of this section of Thucydides [2] with the Greek [3]; hoplitai is consistently translated as 'heavy-infantry'. If you don't believe me, you can click on the word hoplitai in the Greek text, and the derivation and translation of the word is provided. The etymology hoplon -> hoplite is presumably one of Diodorus's many incorrect statements.

Whenever Thucydides and Herodotus talk about the shield of the hoplitai, they use the word aspis/aspidi, not 'hoplon' (compare for instance [4] and [5]. Given that these authors were writing at the time, it seems very likely that the ancient Greeks did not call their shields 'hoplon'. Diodorus was writing some 400 years later, and has presumably got his facts mixed-up. This looks like a classic example of back-formation; perhaps by Diodorus's time, the shield has come to be known as a hoplon because it was used by hoplites.

I'm not suggesting that the shield has never been called a hoplon, but it seems clear to me that this is a) not what the Ancient Greeks called it and b) not the origin of the word 'hoplite'. Of course, in modern use, the shield is known as a hoplon, and this should be acknowledged in the article. The text you replaced in the article is far from perfect in describing the etymological relationship between shield/soldier/armour, but it should not simply be replaced by Diodorus's seemingly false etymology. I will have a look at re-writing that passage to make all this clear. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I think you are too dismissive. We have many uses of the word "hoplon" as shield long before Diodorus. Xenophon describes the Chaldean shields as "gerra makra hopla" (long wicker shields) in his Anabasis (4.3.4). Don't get carried away by the fact that hoplon also means "arms" as is also used in modern Greek. It was no error of Diodorus. Should you dispute the etymology given by Diodorus, you should find some more evidence than just alternate meanings of the word "hoplon". If you wish to see more examples, I will be happy to provide you with some. Hygiene! GK1973 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I appear dismissive, it's because I'm fairly sure I'm right. The example you quote from Xenophon is a poor one - if hoplon is the specific word for a hoplite's shield, why would Xenophon use it to describe a wicker shield? And what does Xenophon use to describe the hoplite shield? Aspis. See for instance, Hellenica 7.5.20 [6]: "and all alike sharpened their spears and daggers and burnished their shields"; [7] "pantes de êkonônto kai lonchas kai machairas kai elamprunonto tas aspidas."

You seem to confuse my argument anyway - I'm not saying that hoplon can't be used a to mean 'shield'. What I'm saying is a) that hoplon was not the name for the round hoplite shield, which is clearly described as aspis in contemporary Greek sources, and b) that 'hoplite' is not derived from hoplon.

As for other evidence:

• A lexicon of Herodotus
  • Hopla - 'gear', 'arms' [8]
  • Aspis - 'Round shield' [9]
• A lexicon of the Attic dialect (based usage in Thucydides, Xenophon, etc.)
  • Shield - Aspis (prose), Sakos, Kyklos (verse); Pelte (small shield); Gerron (wicker shield) [10]
    • Hoplon not present
  • Armour - Hopla [11]
  • To Arm (verb) - Hoplixein

I could go on. But if I haven't persuaded you yet, I'm unlikely to do so. I will say this though; I would happily dispute most things Diodorus says, since he makes so many mistakes. Anyway, if you want to change the article, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. I have provided plenty of evidence that the hoplite shield was not called 'hoplon by the ancient Greeks. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just advise to not be that certain. The burden of proof against what has always been the academic etymology of the word "hoplite" lays on you. I have provided at least one source, which you deem to disprove with a very inappropriate argument. I will provide more sources on the matter. Please do the same. I have not yet read a modern or ancient text which supports your claims, yet I would be happy to be presented with some. I hope you are well versed in the matters of ancient Greek language and warfare and I am certain that you also hope I am. So, let us stick to Diodorus' account until you can present more sources or until I convince you with more of mine. I will also quote lexicons and texts soon, although I am not that certain that I should since you already accept that "hoplon" can mean "shield". Yet to claim more, you should present more than just original research. Noone doubts the use of the word "aspis" in the ancient texts. We are talking about the word "hoplite". Thank you. GK1973 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously use Perseus read here [12] what "hoplon" means according to the Liddell Scott Lexicon. By the way, I want you to know that even according to my opinion, hoplon is not the predominant word used for the (hoplite) aspis. Yet, to dispute Diodorus, you need something more concrete. I will do some more research tomorrow, although I have to say that all modern historians I know stand by Diodorus' account, unless you can point me to some work I am not familiar with. And by the way, "hoplon" usually does also NOT mean "armor" in ancient texts. It usually means "weapon" and is used in plural to denote both spear and shield. So, your translation should read more like "man with weapons" than "armored man", regardless how different translators do in English. Hygiene! GK1973 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi i was wondering why do you say that the soldiers carried an aspis when the hoplite shield was a hoplon. It was the Macedonian fhalangites that wore an aspis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Lemgård (talk • contribs) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"aspis" means "shield". Every kind of shield can be an aspis. The aspis of the Macedonian phallangites used the "pelti", a smaller aspis than the "hoplon" of the hoplites. Their regiments had names like argyraspides (= silver shields), chrysaspides (golden shields) etc but sometimes were also called "peltastai". Anyways... aspis means "shield", pelti means "small shield", hoplon means "the aspis of the hoplite - large, round, concave", thyreos or thureos mean "aspis like a door - oblong and usually rectangular or oval" etc GK1973 (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.48.30 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image Text Edit

Book does not specfiy weater or not it is a sparten so thus should not be listed as such here is a link to a copy of that page http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=268753&imageID=438609&total=30&num=0&parent_id=268532&word=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&k=0&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&imgs=20&pos=18&snum=&e=w
-Sic dicit Defectu tui omnis iam = So Says your failure is always present 15:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The citizen-soldier

"A hoplite was a citizen-soldier of the Ancient Greek city-states." Like the article, this introductory statement does not fly. As goes the foundation, so goes the house. For as long as I can remember, "hoplite" means "heavy-armed infantry" as opposed to "peltast" meaning "light-armed infantry." The difference is mobility. What, were the peltasts, the hippeis, the archers and the sailors not citizen-soldiers? Some states traditionally supplied peltasts, such as the slingers. They would run up, do their thing and run out again. But if you wanted to sweep a larger area more certainly with a killing zone you used the hoplites. The function of these troops was to kill, kill, kill! Argh! Die, die, die! Let us not lose sight of the main goal of these troops, which was to MURDER the enemy! The pictures are pretty and the terminology is very cute but nobody was there to be cute and have historic arguments, they were there to kill, murder, slaughter, massacre - what have you. Hence the heavy-armed troops. They did the work. "Hear a warrior's chorus, sweep that line before us ...." That sounds great as a football song. What that meant on the ancient battlefield is that you walked a line of shields forward and with your spears sticking out in front of it killed everything in front of it for a distance of a couple of feet. If you walk 100 yards you kill, murder, slaughter, assassinate every living thing in 100 yards of field. The enemy tried to stop you but your shield wall and armor protected you. They were heavy so you moved very slowly. The Romans had hob-nailed boots to keep their footing in the mud and the blood. These events had nothing whatever to do with free or non-free citizenry, who was running for president, who owned what land, where the troops came from, whether you could vote in the next election, whether you owned your own gear, how much money you had or did not have or what your sexual preferences might have been. Those were totally irrelevant to being a hoplite. They had nothing to do with you at all. As a hoplite you were a killing machine plain and simple. I'm sorry, war is about death, butchery, being sliced up, torn apart, having your blood vessels opened, having your head chopped off and your teeth sliced out. It is not a social status in any way. You aren't running for prom queen. After a hoplite wall passed over a field it was littered with heads, arms, legs, people groaning and clutching at their abdomens to keep their intestines in, while some people paid for the job tried to carry away men who were still somehow alive. That is a hoplite. The hoplite was by definition a heavy-armed killer. He could not however run away so if you could catch him in an arrow or spear shower you could kill him before he killed you. Usually in write-ups of this sort one tries to objectify these events with military language but I see none of that here. Rewrite, lads, please. A hoplite is not a citizen-soldier. Some of them were quite nasty men, insisting very rudely on their money. Awful fellows. A hoplite was a heavily armed soldier who was protected by a shield wall when in line but had little mobility.Dave (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Tittle of Armour Collection Photo

This Collection Armour founted in 1980 in Thesprotia Epirus Greece. After restoration, the Armour Collection, has been exposed in National Corfu Museum. From Year 2010 after the New Igoumenitsa National Museum opening, the Collection transferred in Igoumenitsa Museum, Epirus, Greece. Dr. Harry Gouvas, Epirus Greece Harrygouvas (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct. But the image title says Corful. The photographer who gave us the image presumably knew where the photo was taken. We must continue to use the Corfu description. I've modified it to say the helmets are "from" the Corfu Museum, which is accurate, but allows for the possibility that they are moved. We need a reliable published source to confirm if they are moved. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

when did these hoplite units stop being used?

id like to know when hoplites were last used on the battlefeild when they were last used in warfare. what kind of soldgier would have re-placed this type of combat. i do know that in the roman empire centuries later we had a soldgier called the legionary and these were deployed. im asking this question for acedemic reasons becasue i seek knowledge . having this answered will help me see how warfare has progressed in the centuries since the times of alexander the great. in the early 300's BC 99.164.105.120 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Othismos is extremely controversial

There is no scholarly consensus about what Othismos referred to - a literal shoving match or not? - or about how Hoplites fought. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ὁπλίτης

Is "ὁπλίτης" modern Greek or is it the form of Greek spoken about 2000-3000 years ago (when ὁπλίται were used)? If it is the modern Greek word, then what is the ancient Greek word for "hoplite"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.216.163 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with Persian infantry

There are repeated comparisons between Greek hoplites and the Persian infantry and even archers. But the article fails to mention that these units were not supposed to face each other to start with, the hoplites were normally supposed to be engaged with cavalry (in the Greco-Persian Wars), this may lead the reader to assume otherwise. --Z 13:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Equipment - body armour confusion

Reading the section on the body armour, I'm a bit confused - the text is somewhat contradictory and vague.

- The hoplite army consisted of heavily armoured infantrymen. Their armour, also called panoply, was made of full bronze, weighing nearly 32 kilograms (70 lb). The average farmer-peasant hoplite typically wore no armour, carrying only a shield, a spear, and perhaps a helmet plus a secondary weapon.

So... if the hoplite army consisted of heavily armoured infantrymen, how can the average hoplite wear no armour? I'm also not quite clear on what the weight of the panoply refers to. I that a weight for a full set of armour, including the linothorax, greaves, cuirass and helmet? Just for the cuirass? And, since in the previous paragraph we have explained that the equipment was non-standard and varied over time and location, how can we even give such a precise weight for it?

There seems to be a lot of information in this section, written by knowledgeable people, but it looks like it has had a number of sometimes conflicting insertions that detract from the overall sense - I don't know what to believe. It needs a bit of a tidy up, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to do a re-write. Are there any more clued-up editors who might be willing to do a bit of improving?Girth Summit (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Logades (λογάδες)

Regarding the lines in intro which previously read:

Hoplites were not professional soldiers and often lacked sufficient military training. Although some states did maintain a small elite professional unit known as the logades or epilektoi (chosen unit) since they were chosen from the regular citizen infantry, these units existed at times in Athens, Argos, Thebes (Greece), Syracuse, among others.

As far as I can tell, logades in Ancient Greek refers to a picked, yes, but not professionally trained group of hoplites. One source says:

In short, logades were formed to complete missions that a large, slow, barely controllable mass of warriors such as the hoplite levy could not carry out. The inclusion of particularly strong or skilled warriors was not as important as the formation of the unit as such—the placement of a distinct group of men under the direct command of a single officer, often the general himself. The small size of units of logades meant that they were able to retain good order and move quickly, making them perfectly suited to act as a reserve or as a strike force to seize the tactical initiative.

While a group so-called could be trained at public expense, it seems, that doesn't make it integral to the term. A further problem is that the term is seemingly more often used to refer to élite military commanders under the Huns and the Avar Empire.

Epilektoi, on the other hand, is much more common, and carries the specific connotation of professional, trained soldiers picked from a citizen army.

References

"Sufficient"

"Hoplites were not professional soldiers and often lacked sufficient military training." -- The word "sufficient" is meaningless on its own; training can only be sufficient or not sufficient for some purpose. 2.24.113.186 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Some hoplites were full time soldiers. And some of them earned a living that way.

Regarding the statement above - the word sufficient clearly relates to their role as hoplites. It is no different from saying that soldiers in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War sometimes lacked sufficient military training when first thrown into action. Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Clarification needed" indeed...

The first paragraph of the first section (entitled "warfare") ends thusly: "The Lacedaemonian citizens of Sparta were renowned for their lifelong combat training and almost mythical military prowess, while their greatest adversaries, the Athenians, were exempted from service only after the age of 60. This inevitably reduced the potential duration of campaigns and often resulted in the campaign season being restricted to one summer."

Can the person who strung these sentences together please explain what they have to do with one another? Regarding the first sentence, Spartan military superiority could still be so AND have its soldiers exempted from military service at 60 as well, right? So why then use the conjunction "while" as if to imply the Athenians' 60 year age limit would somehow alone, put them at a military disadvantage from the Spartans? As for the second sentence, how would "this" (whatever 'this' is even referring to since we have two seemingly separate points; one being spartan military prowess and the other being an Athenian age restriction) "inevitably" reduce campaigns to one season? Either I'm really stupid and not getting it or someone is spouting incoherent babble. Apparently Wikipedia agrees with the latter, as evidenced by the "clarification needed" tag. 2001:569:5814:E200:5D43:7C23:E10F:154C (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction and addition

1. "It would have been nearly impossible to swing both shield and sword if the man next to you is practically touching."

The word "you" should always be avoided and the third person should be used instead.

2. "Roman equipment also changed, trading spears for swords and heavy javelins (pilum)."

The word "swords" should probably be followed by "(gladius)" to add more context in the parallelism.

ICE77 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

After alexander Hoplite

after alexander the great his kingdom of macidonia split into the diadochi kingdoms the greek city states were among them Matt.memarian (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)