The Greeks created one of the most effective infantry formations in military history - the phalanx. Their armies were based on heavy-armed infantrymen, hoplites, who ruled on the battlefields of ancient Greece for hundreds of years. The Greek phalanx was an undisputed formation when fighting against light infantry and cavalry units. Greek mercenaries, on the other hand, were valuable and sought-after soldiers in almost every ancient country. About the effectiveness of the Greek infantry found out the Persians, whose much more numerous armies were unable to oppose the Greek hoplites.
Before the Greek art of war, mentioned above and known from books or films, appeared on the pages of history and on the battlefields, the Hellenes went through various phases of social and military development.
Achaean warfare
From the 1st to the 2nd century BC, the Mycenaean civilization was on the rise in ancient Greece (named after its main centre in Mycenae). The early Greeks are identified with this civilization and their name, the Achaeans, appears in Homer's works, the Iliad and the Odyssey. In the first instance, the Achaean Greek warriors clad in bronze armour, subdued a population, of whose origin nothing is known, living in the Peloponnese. The Greek historian Tukidides states that the Achaean tribes had a strong fleet that engaged in privateering or piracy and posed dangerous competition to the Cretans. Eventually, around 1450 BC, the Achaeans conquered Crete, which they ruled unchallenged from then on from the palace at Knossos. The rich Minoan culture, so called after the legendary King Minos, thus collapses. According to Tukidyes, Minos was a Greek himself, which, in the depths of ancient history, is, however, not so certain. The Cretans might as well have come from North Africa or Asia Minor. Morover, in the continental Greece, there were several other political entities alongside Mycenae and Knossos - Tiryns, Pylos, Orchomenos. Their rulers resided in defensive citadels, built of stone blocks (the so-called cyclopean walls), from which they governed their territory.
The Cyclopean masonry was considered one of the wonders of the world. Legend had it that a king named Proetus, who ruled Tiryns, brought seven Cyclopes to build the walls. Fortifications of similar size also surrounded other Achaean strongholds. They consisted of blocks of stone two to three metres long, one metre thick and one metre high. The thickness of the fortresses ranged from six to eleven metres.
The Greek history of that period is largely covered by a fog of many ambiguities. For example, the legend of the one-eyed giants who were supposed to build the mighty fortresses, was a way for the later Greeks, who had not been aware of the real events, to explain the existence of the walls. What is known, however, is that during the mysterious Achaean period (also called the heroic period, after the deeds of the warriors who fought in the Trojan War), the Greeks conducted numerous raiding expeditions. They also served as mercenaries to Middle Eastern rulers (also as guards of the Assyrian kings). Both of these activities brought them great wealth. There were also strong links between the Achaeans and the Hittites. It was from the Hittite state that the Greeks of the time borrowed the way of fighting using the chariot. They also most likely learned the art of building megalithic fortresses from the Hittites (the above-mentioned Cyclopean walls).
Initially, the military tactics of the Greeks involved individual duels fought by warriors who were armed with two long spears and a bronze sword. A shield in the shape of the number eight was used for protection, but was not held in the hand but slung over the shoulder. It was most likely designed as passive protection against projectiles and not necessarily for active defence. Protective armour was complemented by helmets, usually with boar tusks. At the end of the 14th century, sickle-shaped swords appeared in the arsenal of weapons. At that time, smaller, round shields already held in the hand began to be used for defence against these deadly weapons. Also, in addition to the horned one, a helmet with a visor at the front was introduced to provide cover against a blow dealt from above. War chariots (the crew consisted of a warrior and a driver) became popular at the time, most likely borrowed from the Hittites, who were in contact with the contemporary Greeks. According to ancient descriptions, troops of ordinary infantry, led by aristocrats, also participated in battle. Nevertheless, early Greek armies were not numerous, usually totalled not more than a thousand soldiers.
Also, the level of training of the troops, or employing archers, for example, was not so good, especially in comparison with the Near East armies of the time. However, the mighty block castles and the penchant for war, plus hunting scenes found on the walls of those fortresses, were indicative of the Achaeans' warlike attitude. After the invasion of another Greek tribe, the Dorians (c. 1100 BC), the cavalry became more important, recruited - following the example of other ancient states - from the nobility. However, the cavalry did not develop in Greece, as the terrain was not conducive to horse breeding. A significant result of this was the development of infantry, whose fighting style provided the example to be fallowed by others for coming centuries. The decline of the Achaean civilization brought the disappearance of writing and the consequent lack of historical sources from this ‘dark’ period of Greek history.
Command sytem
The command of Greek armies generally vested in ruling elites, who not only exercised leading state functions, but also decided on war and peace through their policies, as well as represented the citizens of their state on the battlefield (commanders almost always fought in the first rank). Generally, armies were commanded by army leaders (the so-called Strategos) elected by a popular assembly (e.g. as in Athens) or appointed by the ruler (e.g. as happened in Sparta). The armies of Greek city-states had for a very long time citizen-orientated character. There was no permanent organizational structure in the form of permanent military headquarters (although the first written treatises on strategy and tactics were already appearing at that time). The exception was the Spartans, who themselves were a thoroughly militarized society. .
The nature of army - a cross-section
The development of the Greek military took place at the turn of the sixth and fifth centuries, when Sparta (with its strong land army) and Athens (ruling the waves) were the most prominent military and political entities among all Hellenistic city-states. The armed forces of each polis consisted of citizen-soldiers who were assigned to particular unit types in accordance with their wealth. Equipment was not standardized. Thus, they fought with their own weapons and such as they could afford. The weapons could be expensive swords, shields and breastplates, or simple, captured weapons, often chosen at random.
The backbone of the army was heavy infantry - the hoplites - composed of able-bodied males from the middle classes who formed the bulk of this formation. The richest made up the cavalry, while those unable to acquire expensive weapons served in light-armed units and the navy (if the polis had one). A land army was thus usually composed of three interacting formations: cavalry, heavy infantry and light-armed infantrymen. If, on the other hand, we look at the cross-section of people of different ages, the Greek warriors, were young or middle-aged men. By profession, they were peasants, fishermen, merchants and craftsmen or any other skilled worker. This was very significant. To bring together an army at harvest time was, if possible at all, highly problematic. In the situation of armed conflict between the Greeks themselves, a time of unwritten truce usually prevailed during the harvest period.
The Greek hoplites - with the exception of the Spartans - did not resemble the later disciplined Roman troops, marching in order, with the steady, regular marching step, which was a marked feature of the legions. The column of the army, which did not have the character of a marching formation, walked rather disorderly, was variously armed, laden with sacks of food - for the soldiers themselves had to carry provisions, consisting of dried grain, cakes and a wineskin. Moreover, the marching column was quite noisily. Commanders were not allowed to punish subordinated to them soldiers during exercises or war, what caused discipline problems within the army. Complaints could only be made after returning to the city. An army selected in this way certainly did not make the best impression on the outside observer. A military formation commanded by professional officers was, in fact, non-existent. Nor there were any auxiliary units to be seen around. The poor sight of a marching army of Greek warriors could, however, be misleading. These soldiers knew how to handle their weapons, as most of them had practised wrestling and fencing from a young age, training in gymnasias and palestraes (wrestling schools). The young Greeks thus underwent more or less regular training in how to use weapons, after which they took an oath and thus became part of the armed force of their homeland. In Athens, for example, the training lasted for one year, after which the young soldier served for another year in a frontier unit. The trained warrior would, after a period of two years, return to his chosen profession, with the obligation to join the army when a need was arising. The quite frequent wars waged between the city-states, were forcing people to take part in war campaigns, but on the other hand, tested and honed their skills in real combat.
Hoplite armaments
The middle-class citizens of the Greek city-states formed the heavily-armed infantry - the hoplites. The creation of this formation of soldiers is linked to the enrichment of the peasantry from which these troops originated. This process was facilitated by tyrants (the classic example is Pyristate of Athens), who sought to weaken the influence of the aristocracy, which had hitherto been the backbone of the armies of the Greek city-states. The tyrants began to divide up the land, which usually belonged to the wealthiest, creating a middle-class of farmers who from then on, for many centuries to come, formed the basis of the armies of the Greek city-states (700 - 400 BC). The heavy-infantryman was obliged to provide his own equipment: a linen or bronze armour suit, a bronze helmet with cheek plates, as well as greaves. An important part of the equipment was the shield (hoplon), measuring between 80 and 100 centimetres. It protected the left arm of the fighting warrior and the right arm of his neighbour. It weighed about 8 kg. It was made of oak, which was covered with animal hide on the inside and a thin sheet of bronze on the outer face. The shields were painted with the head of Medusa or featured the native city of the warriors. The hoplite's primary weapon was a long (about 2.5 meter) spear (doru), used for thrusting (not throwing). For hand-to-hand combat, a short sword (xiphos) was used, which, however, due to the huge compression of soldiers in the phalanx formation, was not practical and for that reason often used. In total, the armament weighed about 35 kilograms.
Professional troops
Transformations in the training of soldiers accelerated during the Peloponnesian War (431 – 404 BC). The long and frequent wars required warriors to be more physically fit and be called up any time than soldier-citizens, who were detached from their daily activities. In this situation, the introduction of professional, or mercenary, armies became understandable. The weakening of the aristocracy, the impoverishment of the peasantry on one side, and the enrichment of the cities and the competition of cheap slaves (for the urban poor to on the job market) on the other, encouraged the recruitment of mercenaries. From the end of the fifth century, mercenary troops gradually started to replace citizen armies. Soldier-mercenaries came mainly from the poor Greek regions, Arcadia and Aetolia (e.g. in Arcadia, mercenaries organized a corps of several thousand, which was hired by prosperous city-states).
Phalanx
Greek armies fought in the formation called a phalanx. It was a formation unrivalled for its ability to take on loose troops and cavalry charges. It was a compact, rectangular mass military formation, consisting of multi-row (from 8 to 50 ranks) line of soldiers. As a rule, it was spreaded out 500–800 meters in breadth. A soldier occupied a space of about one meter from his comrades, protecting the left part of his body and the right body part of his neighbour with his shield. For this reason, the entire formation tended to move to the right, as the soldiers tried to cover themselves behind their neighbours' shields. Consequently, the best troops were positioned on the right side. Arranged in this way, the formation attacked the enemy at first with a walking pace and then with a fast march or run, aiming to push the enemy back and brake the opposite formation with its momentum. The effectiveness of the phalanx lay in maintaining compactness during manoeuvres and during the battle itself. Only the first two ranks of soldiers fought. When a soldier from the first line died, he was replaced by his neighbour from the second line. The remaining lines were to protect the first two ranks with long spears (doru) and push the first two lines against the enemy. The size of the phalanx was thus of considerable importance. The more ranks, the greater the momentum, which almost always guaranteed victory in a clash with another not-so-deep phalanx. As a rule, the fight ended with the breaking of the ranks of the phalanx of one of the fighting sides. This is because the hoplites were unable to defend themselves against any other assault than a frontal one. During the period of the internal wars, the phalanx underwent significant modifications thanks to the Theban general Epaminondas (418 – 362 BC), who introduced a diagonal formation, thinned out the right flank and centre of his phalanx, and deepened his left flank to fifty men deep, while the centre and the right wing were passive, whose main task was to maintain contact with the assaulting left wing. The Thebans first used this tactic in a clash with Sparta at the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), which became the tomb of Spartan splendour (almost half of all living Spartan warriors fell). The Theban opponents were surprised by the new tactics, especially since until then the right wing had been considered an honourable place of battle. Nevertheless, the essence of the phalanx still remained the same.
Characteristics of the hoplite
The use of the phalanx formation required not only well-trained soldiers who were proficient at handling weapons, but also having great mental strength, patience, discipline and courage. Many times these qualities were (according to some theories) decisive, especially when there were two phalanxes squared up to each other. This was to keep the ranks in close order when performing manoeuvres on the battlefield. Moreover, this way of combat required of the hoplites to give up their individual exploits. Hoplite training focused more on general physical endurance than training any individual skills. Indeed, an actively fighting hoplite could last 30 minutes before he was worn down by physical exhaustion. The battle itself was brutal and fast, and did not last more than one hour.
Endurance training was therefore of considerable importance. During the Olympic Games of 520 B.C. there performed for the first time athletes-runners in full armament of the hoplite of that time - helmet, armour, greaves, with shields held in their hands. Legend says that the run in armour was to commemorate a real event: the running into the stadium of an armed soldier during one of the Olympics, who announced a victory of his country in the war. In fact, it was more about exercise, and was supposed to be a preparation for real combat, which, after all, required great strength and endurance, and to prove that the Games not only had a sporting dimension, but also taught how to wear a heavy armour. Gradually, this discipline changed and various parts of the armament were taken away from competitors, until in the 2nd century, runners performed only with helmets and shields in hand, always of the same size and weight.
The phalanx had its weaknesses too. The formation required constant protection on the flanks from cavalry and light-armed infantry. Archers also constituted a threat. Difficulties arose as well with the roughness of the terrain on which the phalanx was used. Greece is a land where only about 20 percent of the terrain is relatively flat – that was the only natural place to fight a battle by means of such military formation. For that reason flat plains were the most favourable places where the conflict could be settled .
Cavalry
Soldiers who fight mounted on horseback in Greece were not a decisive force as it was the case in most of ancient armies. Nevertheless, their role increased significantly after the Peloponnesian War. The reason that the main force of the Greek army was infantry can be related to Greece's location. Much of Greece was an area devoid of vast plains necessary for grazing and horse breeding. The exception to this was the lands of Beotia and Thessaly, and as a result, the Greeks had the best cavalry units in those areas. In addition, it was very expensive to maintain a horse and armaments, and only a small group of the wealthiest citizens were able to fight as horsemen (the most ordinary horse cost up to 25 sheep). As the phalanx was a sufficient enough force to be used in military operations, the role of cavalry was greatly reduced. Any frontal attack on the phalanx was doomed to failure, and the terrain often did not allow to launch an effective attack from the flank or rear. The role of cavalrymen was limited to protecting the flanks of their own phalanx.
However, the lack of sufficient number of horsemen could make the phalanx exposed to encirclement by the enemy's cavalry. Usually the horsemen of the two warring sides chequered each other, and the outcome of the battle depended on the clash of the phalanxes. Sometimes it happened that the outcome of the battle was determined by the getting the cavalry of one of the warring sides to the rear of the enemy, especially when the latter did not have their own horsemen. Thus, over time, clashes between the opposing cavalry forces, armed mainly with spears and javelins, became more frequent. Cavalrymen also served as scouts and in skirmishes. They also interrupted supply lines and raided enemy lands.
Protection of the heavy cavalry consisted of bronze armour, a helmet, most often of the Boeotian type, which provided good protection while maintaining good visibility and audibility. In the 4th and 3rd centuries, leather corsets, much lighter than bronze, were introduced on a larger scale.
The basic cavalry formation was a block wide and deep for ten riders. If necessary, it was possible to extend the front by half through the rear five ranks. The exception was the Thessalonians, who preferred the Scythian wedge. Similar battle tactics were also used by the inhabitants of Boeotia.
Peltasts
In the fifth century, the importance of auxiliary troops, archers and slingers, who were initiating the battle by attacking the enemy, increased. Among the best Greek archers were the inhabitants of Crete island, and the best slingers came from the island of Rhodes. Wealthier cities also hired excellent Scythian archers. The light infantry - the peltast, which until then had been limited to protecting the flanks of the phalanx, reconnaissance and harassing the enemy before the main battle - also came to greater prominence. Peltast units came to great importance during the Peloponnesian War. These soldiers initially originated in Thrace, where they were recruited by Greek cities, which saw them as a cheaper alternative to the hoplites, whose armaments were more expensive. Peltasts were armed with a crescent-shaped shield (made of wood and covered in goat-or sheepskin), called a pelte, hence their name, several javelins, and sometimes a sword. Protection was provided, in addition to the shield, by a semicircular or round helmet and a kaftan. This type of infantry was thus more mobile and less expensive than hoplites.
Light-armed hoplites
At the beginning of the 4th century, the Athenian reformer and commander Iphicrates (? - 353 BC), introduced troops of light-armed hoplites in Athens, having as a model the peltasts of Aetolia, who in 426 BC inflicted huge loses on the Athenian hoplites during one of their encounters. These troops were able to fight effectively even against the heavy-armed Spartan hoplites, who were not fast enough in dealing blows. This was shown especially in the Corinthian War (394 – 387 BC), between Sparta and Athens, when in one clash the Laconians lost 40 percent of their hoplites. So the example of Athens was followed by other city-states. Light-armed men were quite popular especially in the northern polis, which encountered the Thracian battle tactic that often was far superior to the old one used by heavy-armed hoplites. The light-armed hoplites were recruited mainly from poor social strata who could not afford the expensive armament of the hoplites. The light-armed man was carrying a smaller shield that could be hung around his neck if necessary. He did not wear greaves, and the armour was replaced by a light linen, paddled, quilted, or leather cuirass. The spear was made longer up to 3.6 meters. The new hoplite also gained in speed. The fact that light hoplites made up the largest group of Greek mercenary soldiers can attest to the effectiveness of these troops. The fighting style and warlike attitude of the Greeks were highly valued among Asian rulers, especially those of Persia, and Egypt. The light-armed hoplites were able to fight effectively even against the Macedonian phalanx, as was the case at Issos (333), when the Greeks inflicted heavy losses on the Macedonians, and despite the debacle of the Persian troops, managed to withdraw in order from the battlefield. Mercenaries from Greece also served in the Lydian state and wealthy Phoenician cities. Unlike many other nations, Greek mercenaries were paid in golden coins. Many Greek commanders found their place among the aristocracy of the Persian Empire, before the conquests of Alexander III the Great.
Siege art
The armies of classical Greece were poorly suited to conduct sieges. Greek soldiers were not trained to actively besiege fortresses and fortified cities and thus tried to avoid confining the enemy behind walls. To this end, they invaded the enemy's territory and tried to provoke their foe into open battle. Sieges consisted mainly of blockading and starving into submission the besieged place. This tactic was far from practical for any army wishing to bring about quick and conclusive results. In the 5th century, the Greeks began to use some basic technical solutions for sieges. Siege towers started to be used, but with variable results. Throwing machines were also introduced, such as a wooden narrow tube at the end of which was a cauldron filled with burning sulfur and tar. The best solution was the catapult, which launched a projectile a great distance. It was invented around the year 400 in Syracuse. The device was shaped like a primitive crossbow that fired wooden bolts, cauldrons of hot tar and stones. The material for the restraining rope, called neuron by the Greeks, was a combination of horsehair and ox tendon. Some of these machines were of considerable size and moved on wheeled platforms. One such machine, the palintonon, could shoot a load of 3.5 kg of stones at a distance of nearly 300 meters. The Greek armies, however, were able to exploit the ingenuity of Greek technicians only to a certain degree of success. However, the Greek inventiveness was exploited to a great extent by Macedonians and Romans.