Hugo Blumner

The Heroic Period—Tribal Wars—The Chariot—Characteristics of Greek Warriors—The Spartans—The Athenian Array—Greek Arms—Cavalry—Greek Sieges—Greek Ships—The Trireme.

Scarcely any changes seem to have taken place in the character of the offensive and defensive arms of the Greeks from the most ancient period until the Roman time, though the conduct of warfare made enormous advances in the thousand years between the Trojan War and the age of Alexander the Great and his successors. Our authorities for the earliest period are but few, but the wars of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. have been carefully described by historians, some of whom themselves possessed military knowledge. We must therefore be content to obtain our knowledge of warfare in early times from the descriptions of poets, who naturally aimed at a very different result from the historian. The Homeric Epics are not authorities which we can follow absolutely in every respect, but still they enable us to form a picture of the warfare of that period, and gain some general notion of the mode in which it was conducted.

The military conditions of that time bore the same patriarchal character which characterised the government of the heroic age. Greece, which even in the historic age was broken up into a number of separate nationalities, was in the heroic period merely a collection of tribes living in constant feud with one another, and undertaking continual predatory expeditions on their neighbours’ territory; the nobles placing themselves at the head of a number of enterprising men, and regarding these proceedings as in no way dishonourable to them. Sometimes a great common undertaking combined several tribes under one head, but even then the power of this chief was by no means an unlimited one; the separate tribes who took part in the expedition under their own princes and nobles stood under their immediate command, and it depended on the goodwill of these little kings whether they submitted to the ordinances of the chief commander or not. Consequently there could be no question of a common arrangement of the army, or of a subdivision of the people according to the nature of the arms they used; the battle order was drawn up according to tribes.

Nor were they acquainted with any definite plan of battle. The main brunt of the fight was borne by the nobles, who fought from their chariots, and whose single combat with renowned leaders on the other side excited such universal interest that very often the battle stopped meantime. Moreover, these duels were often decisive for the victory or defeat of the whole army. The nobles appeared in full armour, accompanied by their charioteers, on their war chariots, usually drawn by two horses. On the vase painting depicted in Fig. 166 the painter has represented four horses drawing the chariot, but in so doing he was not following an old tradition, since in his time the custom of fighting with chariots had long ceased, but rather the universal practice of ancient vase painting, which always represented war chariots with four horses, following the example of the Quadrigae used in races. The warrior stands holding the reins in his left hand, and his spear in the right, and has not yet mounted his chariot; he is in full armour, and so is the warrior standing in front of the chariot, and consequently we are justified in supposing that this really represents a war chariot. The Greeks, when they fought from their chariots, dashed at full speed from their own ranks against the foe, and often challenged an enemy to single combat with words of bitter mockery; this was begun with lances, and afterwards, when the combatants had got close together and possibly left their chariots, with the sword; even stones were not despised in the heat of combat. Cavalry was unknown in the time of Homer; the masses of infantry seldom fought hand to hand, but usually from a distance with bows and javelins. But when they came to close quarters they closed their ranks and locked their shields together; for the principle of the closed phalanx, which became so important for Greek warfare, was indicated even in the heroic age. Their mode of warfare shows the uncivilised condition of the Greeks at that time. Cunning and ambush were regarded as permissible, and cruelty and harshness to the fallen enemy were universal. The captives taken in war became slaves if they were not ransomed, and were sometimes even mercilessly sacrificed. It was considered a glorious deed to rob the fallen enemy of his armour in the midst of the fight, nor was it ignoble to leave his corpse unburied, to be consumed by the wild beasts. Still, there were traces of noble self-sacrifice and comradeship in their conduct towards their own fellow-countrymen.

In the following centuries, after many revolutions and internal contests, the tribes were combined

[Image unavailable.]

Fig. 166.

together into separate states, in the manner which continued with slight territorial changes down to the Macedonian period. But as the Greeks never succeeded in becoming one great united power, or even a federation of states, they never attained to a common army, and the armies of Greece were as manifold and various as the circumstances in the various small states of Hellas. Details have come down to us concerning very few; we know most of Sparta and Athens.

Sparta in particular was warlike in the whole character of its inhabitants, and consequently the whole constitution was based on military principles. Every “Spartiate,” that is, every man descended from an ancient Spartan family, was bound to military service in his country from his twentieth to his sixtieth year. Of course, they did not call upon all capable of bearing arms in time of war, but in each case the Ephors decided which classes were to be levied. Each of the five communities of Sparta supplied one division (?????); these were again subdivided in companies (??a?), who messed in common. In later times, towards the end of the fifth century, the divisions were changed. The whole Lacedaemonian army was then divided into six divisions, each of these into two companies; the size of these divisions varied according to requirement. The non-citizens too were called to military service; the “Perioiki” formed separate divisions, who as a rule did not fight in the same ranks with the Spartiates, but still served like these, as heavy-armed infantry (?p??ta?), while the “Helots,” who were actual slaves, followed their masters to battle as attendants, chiefly as shield-bearers, and were sometimes used in battle as light-armed troops. The command in time of war fell to one of the two kings, and it was the citizens who decided which of the two should take the chief command on a particular occasion. Each separate division of troops had its own leader, who was probably entrusted in time of peace also with the military training and exercise of his men. In military matters the Spartans far excelled most of the other Greeks, because their whole training and education rested on a military basis, and no glory was regarded as greater than that achieved in war. Moreover no Spartiate might work at any profession or trade, but was obliged to dedicate all his powers to the State, and therefore the Spartans were professional soldiers in the true sense of the word. It is true they were only strong in infantry; the cavalry was insignificant both in quality and quantity. Each division had some cavalry, but for this purpose they took the weaker men, who were incapable of serving as heavy-armed infantry, and, in consequence, the cavalry played a very unimportant part in the Spartan army, and they were often obliged to engage foreign mercenaries for the purpose.

The warlike Spartans regarded a military expedition as a desirable opportunity of putting to the test their powers acquired in time of peace, and it was really a kind of festival to them. They set out for a campaign after sacrificing and taking auspices. In the enemy’s country they set up a camp, and this was not square as was the usual Greek custom, but round and unfortified; it was guarded by the outposts and the cavalry, who were sent out to patrol. The helots were encamped outside. Military drill was carried on very energetically within, but still, on the whole, the life and discipline in the field were less severe than at home; and on these occasions purple garments were worn, and the hair was carefully curled and decked with wreaths, a thing which was never done at home in time of peace. Before a battle they offered sacrifices in the early hours of the morning; then they set out against the enemy, with closed ranks and regular step, to the joyous sound of flutes and the marching song, in which the whole army joined. The heroic courage and self-denying endurance with which the Lacedaemonians fought, even without hope of victory, are everywhere renowned, and the noble friendships between older and younger men on these occasions stood out in the brightest light.

At Athens too the citizens were bound to military service till their sixtieth year, but this obligation was not so general as at Sparta. According to the constitution of Solon, it was only the citizens of the three highest classes who were bound to military service; the “Thetes,” who formed the fourth class, were exempt, and only in exceptional cases, such as occurred in later times, during long and serious wars, they were levied as light-armed troops, or more often as sailors for the fleet. After the Revolution of Cleisthenes, when Attica was divided into ten tribes, this political division was also maintained for the levy; the register of citizens was made the basis of a roll of the men in each tribe and deme who were liable to military service, and on each separate occasion the decree of the people decided what ages were to be levied. It was the rule, however, that the first two ages, from the eighteenth to the twentieth year, i.e., the ephebi, should not be called for service in the field, but only in the country as riding patrol, and it was not till their twentieth year that citizens were required to serve outside the country. The members of the council, as well as the higher officials, were exempt from military service during their period of office. The Athenian army was divided into ten divisions (t??e??) according to the number of tribes; these, again, were divided into companies and further subdivisions, whose strength varied according to the size of the levy and the conditions of the country. The resident foreigners, who were also bound to military service, served in the fleet, and also in the land army among the infantry, but never in the cavalry; they were chiefly used to garrison fortified places and defend cities. The cavalry were far more important at Athens than at Sparta. Every tribe supplied a hundred horsemen, and altogether these formed two divisions of five hundred men, commanded by the Hipparchs. As the State did not provide the horses, but expected the soldiers to procure and feed their own, this service was a very expensive one, and consequently was only undertaken by the first two classes. These cavalry regiments, which were the pride of the Athenian citizens, were exercised in time of peace also, and from time to time inspected by the Council of Five Hundred; we have already mentioned that the cavalry played an important part at the Panathenaic procession. In ancient times the army was commanded in time of war by the king, and afterwards by the archon as long as there was only one; when there were nine archons this duty fell to one of them, called the Polemarch. After the reforms of Cleisthenes, it became customary for each tribe to elect a general (st?at????), and for the chief command in time of war to fall to all these generals in turn, each commanding for a day. Next came the “Taxiarchs,” and the two “Hipparchs,” and ten “Phylarchs,” but nearly all these offices lost their importance, as did also the military organisation of the citizens, when the

[Image unavailable.]

Fig. 167.

mercenary system was introduced. This began as early as the time of the Peloponnesian war, and gradually gained ground. Originally they hired troops from foreign nations of a kind which were wanting in their own army; thus, javelin throwers were brought from Rhodes, and archers from Crete, but in the course of the fourth century the actual Hellenic population, and in particular that of Attica, became more and more unwarlike, and as the princes of Macedonia and other non-Hellenic states began to form standing armies of well-disciplined mercenary troops, the Hellenic republics were forced to follow this example as their own military power diminished. This mercenary system did a great deal to undermine the independence of Greece, and facilitate its subjection under the Macedonian dominion. Even in the time of the Peloponnesian war, the Arcadians were willing to fight for anyone who would pay them, against their own countrymen; in the expedition of the Ten Thousand, they formed an important part of the troops of

Fig. 168.

the younger Cyrus, and by no means the worst part. As the population was impoverished by many wars, they became more willing to respond to the invitation of any capable Condottiere, and collected from all states, but chiefly from Peloponnesus; and it sometimes happened that the members of a single state or tribe united together as a special division of the army. As the warlike spirit disappeared among the citizens, who were unwilling to undergo the fatigues of service, these standing mercenary troops, under the command of excellent generals, became more and more disciplined and capable. The pay for a common soldier was usually four obols a day (about fivepence), half of which was pay and the other half ration-money; this amount was sometimes increased. The captain of a company received twice as much, the general four times, but the prospect of booty was even more attractive than the money; for according to the conditions of warfare of that time, every campaign was a predatory and ravaging expedition, and the mercenary troops who went to war from purely personal motives spared neither friend nor foe, and herein simply followed the example of their leaders.

We must now say a few words about Greek arms, in which, as already mentioned, very few changes took place. The full armour of a Homeric hero consisted of greaves, cuirass, helmet, shield, sword, and one or two spears, and in all essentials this was also the armour of the heavy-armed soldiers of the historic

period; there were, however, a few modifications in the centuries which followed Homer. The defensive armour of the infantry consisted in helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield. As a rule, they began by putting the greaves on first, as it would have been difficult to bend the body after putting on the cuirass, and we see this rule observed in most old works of art, though there are some exceptions. The greaves were half-bent plates of brass, lined within with leather or wool; they had to be elastic, because they were bent outwards in putting on, and by means of their elasticity they clung to the leg, the front of which they covered, extending above the knee; still, there must have been a ring round the ankle to hold them fast, and perhaps there was another fastening above. In Fig. 167, which, with Fig. 168, represents pictures from a painted bowl with red figures, we see on the right a young warrior stooping down to put on one of his greaves, which he is bending outwards for this purpose; contrary to the usual custom, the youth has already put on the cuirass and chlamys over his chiton. In Fig. 169, the inner picture of a drinking cup, representing the murder of Dolon, the Greek hero Diomede wears greaves, on which we can clearly recognise the ring below.

The cuirass of the heroic and historic periods is shorter than that which was customary with the Romans, but still descends far enough to cover the greater part of the body below, and may be seen on works of art; but, as a rule, the massive parts do not extend below the waist, and there are movable lappets attached to it to protect the parts below. The cuirass was generally made of bronze, and consisted of two plates, one of which covered the breast, the other the back, and these were fastened together at the lower edges, and also below and above the shoulders by buckles or other fastenings. In later times, shoulder-pieces were added, which are not mentioned in Homer; these were fastened to the back, and when the cuirass was put on drawn from there over the shoulder, and made firm in front with little chains or cords to rings or hooks. In Fig. 168, the man on the right, who is putting on his armour, has already drawn on his cuirass; the two shoulder-pieces are still open, and he is just on the point of pulling the right shoulder-piece

forward, in order to fasten it there to the front piece of his cuirass. In Fig. 170, a heroic genre picture, we see this more clearly. Here Achilles bandages the arm of the wounded. Patroclus; the right shoulder-piece of Patroclus is fastened, but the left is opened in order not to hurt the wounded arm. The mode in which the shoulder-pieces were fastened to the cuirass is very clearly represented in the figure of Amphiaraus, in Fig. 171, a vase painting representing the “Farewell of Amphiaraus.” There were two kinds of cuirass: those with stiff plates, and those with scales. In the former, those plates are commonest which do not fit closely to the body, but only roughly represent its shape; of this kind are the cuirasses of the warriors in Figs. 167 and 167, and also that of Amphiaraus in Fig. 171. In Fig. 172, taken from a bowl painted by Duris, the youth who is going to battle receives a cuirass of this kind (compare also Fig. 166). Sometimes this cuirass was made in a shape common among the Romans, imitating the form of the human body and representing its chief features. The warriors in Fig. 170 wear scale armour; the cuirasses are evidently made of leather, covered with little brass plates, arranged one over another like scales. Some parts of the cuirasses seem also to be made of plates; for instance, the girdle of Achilles and a strip behind, also the upper part of the breast-plate of Patroclus; the shoulder-pieces, however, are made of scales, for flexibility was of special importance here. The belly was protected by leather strips or lappets, covered with metal, hanging down at the lower edge of the cuirass, and covering part of the thighs (compare Figs. 169 and 170). The cuirass was generally fastened round the hips by a leathern belt, with brass coverings; perhaps this is the object which the boy in Fig. 168 is offering to the warrior putting on his armour.

Below the cuirass they wore a short chiton woven of especially strong threads, and frequently mentioned by Homer as twisted or woven; the sleeves were usually cut short, falling a little way below the shoulders, and it only descended over part of the thighs. (Compare the pictures.) Homer also makes mention of a broad girdle (?t?a), plated with brass, worn immediately over the chiton in such a manner that the upper part of the girdle was covered by the cuirass, while the lower was exposed. This girdle seems to have fallen into disuse soon after the Homeric age, for we can find no trace of it on any works of art. The linen tunics mentioned in Homer, which became commoner in later times, were probably woven of strong thread, and covered with brass at the most exposed places.

The helmet, which, even in the earliest ages, took

the place of the original head-covering of skin, was usually of bronze, and, according to the statements of Homer and originals still existing, was of three thicknesses, strongest in the middle, with a thinner layer above and below. The chief part of the helmet fitted close to the head like a cap, and covered forehead and temples; in front it hung down in two separate pieces over the cheeks; there were two openings for the eyes between the nose-piece and cheek-pieces. In ancient times the skull cap and cheek-pieces were made of a single piece, as we see on the ancient Greek helmets from Olympia and Sardinia, represented in Figs. 173 to 175; these are also provided with nose-pieces, so that not much could be recognised of the warrior who was covered in this way. The helmet acquired an additional protection by a ridge extending over the middle of the skull cap from the back of the head to the forehead, in which the crest was fastened; there were also helmets with two ridges to increase the resisting power, and this then had two crests. Very often the crest, which was of great size, was not fastened directly into the ridge, but connected with it by means of a tall, narrow elevation, so that it towered high above the helmet. The vase painting represented in Fig. 176 shows helmets of this kind belonging to two warriors who are playing draughts; one of them has taken off his helmet and placed it on the shield beside him; the other keeps his on, but has raised the part over the forehead; the shape resembles the originals represented in Figs. 173 to 175. Sometimes the crest was fastened straight into the skullcap without any ridge, as on Fig. 166, in the helmet belonging to the warrior on the right. In later times, many changes took place in the shape of helmets; the nose-piece and cheek-pieces were sometimes flexible and sometimes stiff, but of a different shape; thus the helmet of Achilles, in Fig. 170, has the stiff forehead and nose-piece, but the cheek-pieces move on a hinge, and for the sake of comfort the hero has turned them upwards. Of the three helmets in Fig. 167, the one on the ground on the right seems also to have movable cheek-pieces, but there is no nose-piece, and only a protection for the forehead, which could probably also be pushed back; the two others have stiff nose-and cheek-pieces in one with the skull cap, but the cheek-pieces are not pointed, as was usually the case in the older kind, but rounded off. (Compare also Figs. 166, 169, and 172.) There was usually also a protecting piece for the neck, as may be seen on many other pictures. Works of art show manifold ways of decorating the helmets. (Compare the helmet of Diomede in Fig. 169.) Sometimes they made them in the shape of a human face, imitating the lines of the forehead, eyebrows, etc., in bronze. Curiously enough, this mask form was sometimes transferred even to the back of the helmet, as may be seen in Fig. 177, representing the death of Memnon, where the long hair of the warrior descends below the helmet, though this may have been due to a mistake on the part of the artist; another point of interest about this helmet is its two crests. Besides these high and usually splendid helmets, the simple cap-shaped helmets were also extant in later times, and these were strengthened by ridges or plates of brass nailed on them; such is the helmet worn by Amphiaraus in Fig. 171. To prevent excessive pressure on the head, they usually wore a close-fitting cap below it, as we see in the case of Patroclus, in Fig. 170.

In the Homeric age, there were two chief kinds of shields: a small circular one, and an oval shield of almost human height. They were made of several layers of bull’s hide, sewn on the top of one another, and covered, as a rule, on the outer side, with bronze. As the diameter of the skins decreased from without to within, and the strength of the metal coverings decreased from the middle to the edge, the result was that the middle of the shield, which had to offer the greatest resistance, was also the strongest part; besides this, a boss or convex bronze plate (?fa???), was also fixed in the centre of the outer side, but in later times they put the coat of arms in its place. The smaller circular shield seems to have been carried by a double handle, through one part of which, in the middle of the hollow, the arm was thrust, while the other at the edge was clasped by the hand (compare Fig. 169). This mode of carrying would be impossible for the large shields, and these must have been managed by a single handle, though we must not forget that these very heavy shields were also suspended from the body by straps. In later times, too, we find the round and oval shields still in use, but the latter were considerably diminished in size, which is very natural, since it must have been extremely inconvenient and troublesome in battle to carry these enormous shields. Both kinds were moderately vaulted, and had a somewhat projecting edge; the shields, both round and oval, often had two slits at the sides, the object of which was to enable the warrior to peep at the enemy from behind his shield, and also perhaps to send his spear through the opening; these slits may be recognised in the shields in Fig. 176. As to the mode in which they were carried, we sometimes find two handles, both at a little distance from the centre, as on the shield in Fig. 171, of which the inner side is visible; sometimes a crossbar extended over the whole inner breadth of the shield, through which the arm was thrust, while there were various straps at the edge which could be easily grasped, and which made it possible to go on using the shield even if one of these handles should have been torn off. There is a rather different contrivance in a shield in Fig. 167, of which we see the inner side; instead of one crossbar used as a diameter of the circle, there are three like radii meeting together in the centre. Here, too, there were probably loops at the edge. Very often the shields were lined inside with coloured materials, and decorated with tassels or cords; on small round shields we sometimes find a broad lappet of leather, or some such material, hanging down, to give the combatant a further protection for the lower part of his body. The coats of arms, which were very various and full of meaning, were either put on in relief like the head of a satyr in the centre of a shield in Fig. 176, or else inlaid of metal of another colour, or nailed on.

Offensive arms may be divided into those which were used in close combat, especially lance and sword, and those which were used from a distance, in particular, javelin, bow, and sling. The spear, or lance, consisted in a shaft usually made of ash, provided at both ends with a bronze point; one of these points was used for attack, the other (compare Fig. 166) to fix the spear in the ground when it was not required. The material for the point, in the heroic age, was usually bronze; in later times, iron. The blade of the point required for attack was usually leaf-shaped and two-edged (compare Figs. 178 to 181, taken from originals in Dodona); its length was from 7 to 8 inches, its breadth about 2½ in the middle; it was fastened to the upper pointed end of the shaft by a socket, and this socket was surrounded by a ring in order to increase the firmness. The lower end was usually only a short conical point. The length of the spear was greater in the heroic age than afterwards. Homer mentions spears about five yards long, and in naval warfare even one about ten yards long, but this was constructed of several pieces fastened together, and was probably only used in naval warfare to keep off the grappling irons; in later times the usual length was from two to two and a quarter yards. That is about the length of the spears represented in Figs. 167, 168, and 171. We often find, as in Fig. 176, two spears in the hand of a warrior; this usually happened when the soldier used his long spear not only for thrusting, but also for throwing, in which case he would require a reserve spear. In thrusting, as well as in throwing, he clasped the spear in the middle with the right hand alone.

The sword is an even more useful weapon for hand-to-hand combat than the spear, which on account of its length can only be used from some distance. Originally swords were constructed of bronze, and this is the only kind mentioned by Homer, afterwards of iron; the blade was two-edged, and in the heroic age tolerably long, probably shaped like that in Fig. 182, which was brought from Mycenae and is twenty-four inches long; the two-edged blade and the top of the handle, which was decorated by plates of wood, bone, or such like, fastened on by nails, but which has not been preserved, were formed of a single piece. As this sword and the others resembling it were equally well calculated for thrusting and piercing, Helbig’s theory that they most closely resemble the Homeric swords, is a very probable one. The swords

in Figs. 183 and 183, also from Mycenae, are of a different kind; the blades are two-edged, and measure thirty-two inches in length; the top of the haft is formed of the same piece with the blade, and covered with plates of a different material, but this weapon seems to have been exclusively used for piercing. Of another kind are those in Figs. 185 and 186, but these date from Italian lake dwellings, though the same kind is said to have been also found in Greece. The two-edged blade is short here, very broad at the top, but growing gradually narrower, so that the shape almost resembles an acute-angled triangle. The handle, the lower end of which is bent outwards in the shape of a semicircle, is worked out of a separate piece of bronze, and connected with the blade by nails. In the historic age the swords are usually short, the blade about twenty inches long, reed-shaped, and two-edged, adapted for thrusting and piercing; the handle, which is generally suited for parrying strokes, is rather small (compare the sword in Fig. 169, where the sheath and shoulder-belt are well represented). The sheath was often of some costly material, and artistically decorated, ordinary kinds were made of leather; the shoulder-belt was usually a leather strap, with metal plates; it was suspended over the right shoulder, and was so long that the sword hung down by the left side, but in later times they sometimes wore the sword on the right side. Besides the kinds of swords already mentioned there were some others; in particular that which is specially designated as the Lacedaemonian sword, the blade of which is slightly curved on one side from the handle onwards, and very sharp, while the other edge is straight and evidently blunt; this kind of sword could of course only be used for thrusting. Towards the end of the Hellenic period, Iphicrates again introduced long swords in the Greek armies; they measured as much as a yard with the haft, but the heavy-armed infantry probably continued to use the short sword.

There were two other weapons for close encounter, the club and the battle-axe, but they are not important for Greek warfare. The former was chiefly used in the mythical contests of pre-historic times, the latter, represented on works of art as the usual weapon of the Amazons, is sometimes mentioned in Homer as used by Greek heroes, but it was afterwards only in use as an actual military weapon among some Oriental nations.

Throwing weapons were chiefly used by light-armed troops. In the heroic ages the javelin was only a hunting weapon; the heroes usually used their ordinary long lances for throwing. The light javelin, about two and three-quarter yards in length, became a very common weapon of attack in the next period, when the light-armed troops formed a regular part of the army; this closely resembled the javelin used in the gymnastic contests, especially in the Pentathlon, and like this was provided with a loop, which the thrower wound round his fingers. We have already discussed the method of throwing this spear.

Next we have to consider bow and arrows. There were two kinds of bows: in the first place, a simple one formed of a single piece of elastic wood bent outwards at the ends; its form is slightly bent, and only attains the shape of a strong curve when it is drawn. This bow was called the “Scythian,” or “Parthian,” but we find it also on Greek works of art, and it was probably the older kind. The other shape is that of the double bow, in which two curved pieces of horn are connected together by a cylindrical piece of metal; this shape was the commoner in the Greek army, and even when they gave up using goat and gazelle horns for the bow, but constructed it of wood, it retained the shape. The metal plate in the middle was also used as a rest for the arrow, and the ends of the bow to which the string was fastened, were usually plated with metal. The cord was made of plaited guts, and as a rule, when the bow was not in use, was fastened only to one end, and hung down loose, in order that the bow might not lose its elasticity through the constant strain of the string. The arrow was a shaft about twenty-four inches long, usually of light reed, on which the point, supplied with two or more barbs, was fastened with a string; at the other end, it usually had a little weight, supplied with a notch for setting

it more firmly against the string. We have evidence in Greek excavations of the three-edged arrow mentioned by Homer; compare Fig. 187, an arrow-head from Megalopolis. The arrows were kept in a quiver made of leather or basket-work, of which two kinds are found: one wide kind of triangular form, worn on the left side, and generally used with the so-called Scythian bow; and a smaller cylindrical shape, which hung down on the back over the left shoulder, and belonged to the Greek bow. The sling consisted in a cord or strap, broad in the middle, and narrower at the two ends, by means of which little plummets were thrown; these were placed on the broad centre of the strap, the two ends of which were pressed together in the hand and swung a few times round the head; with a careful aim they then let go one end of the strap, whereupon the shot flew in the direction which it had received by the impulse of swinging. In the heroic age the sling-shots were always stone balls; afterwards they also used plummets of clay or lead, very often in the shape of an acorn. The most important part of the Greek army in the heroic age, both in the period of citizen armies and in that of mercenary troops, were the heavy-armed soldiers (?p??ta?). The weight which they had to carry, including offensive and defensive armour, amounted to about 70 lbs., but this considerable weight was only carried by a soldier in battle. On the march, part of the armour was carried in baggage-carts, or else the shield, or even the helmet, was given to a slave to carry (?pasp?st??). But as the inconvenience of the baggage-waggons was great, and the number of slaves—which had formerly been very considerable, so that among the Lacedaemonians there were sometimes seven helots to one Spartan—gradually diminished, we notice a tendency to decrease the weight of the soldier’s armour, first by substituting for the brazen cuirass a tunic of leather plated with brass and shoulder-pieces, and afterwards by using a small round shield for the large oval one. In the time of the Persian wars the light infantry took the place of the slaves, who had formerly, in order that they might not be a useless addition to the army, been armed with javelins and stones. But as the skill required of the light-armed troops was not equally developed among all nationalities, it was necessary here to supply their defects by mercenary soldiers. Thus, as we have already mentioned, the Cretans were celebrated archers; excellent slingers came from Rhodes and Thessaly; and the best javelin-throwers from Acarnania and Aetolia. These three kinds of light-armed troops were distinct; they all went to battle without any defensive armour, not even wearing a helmet, but only a light felt cap or some national hat. Besides these, and standing midway between slaves and light-armed soldiers, were the “Peltasts,” originally a Thracian troop, deriving their name from the pelta, a small wooden shield covered with leather, which resembled the crescent-shaped shield of the Amazons; their offensive weapons were the sword, a long spear, and four or five little javelins. The light-armed troops and peltasts were placed in the field, now in front, now behind the main body of the army, on the wings, or wherever seemed good to the general; they were also used a good deal for sallies, archery, as spies, in ambushes, etc.

The Greeks did not attach any great importance to the cavalry, which was in part the result of the mountainous nature of their country, where cavalry regiments could seldom be properly deployed. Consequently the Greek cavalry, as a rule, rode badly and with uncertainty; they only fought against each other, and never attacked closed ranks of infantry, but pursued them when they were thrown into confusion; regular cavalry attacks, in which the horse not only carries its rider, but also is a means of attack, were unknown. The horses wore saddle-cloths, not regular saddles, and bit and bridle, and armour—consisting of head-piece, breast-plate, and side-pieces. The rider wore a brazen cuirass, with neck-pieces, protected his abdomen by the usual leathern apron with metal coverings, and also wore a special kind of mail over arms and shoulders; the hips were also protected. The shield was not used for ordinary service, the offensive weapons were a long lance and a sword. There can be no doubt that spurs were used at that time, but it is possible that they wore them on only one foot, as the statues of the Amazons seem to show; Figs. 188 and 188 represent Greek spurs, still in existence. Horse-shoes and stirrups were unknown, the rider sprang on his horse with the help of his lance, or else used some stone, branch, or other object to enable him to mount.

We do not propose to enter into detail concerning the arrangement and discipline, tactics and strategy, of the Greek armies. A few words must be said about Greek sieges. Schliemann’s excavations at Mycenae and Tiryns have proved to us the magnificence of some ancient fortifications. It is, therefore, natural that the siege of a strongly-fortified place was a difficult matter for a Greek army, since effective besieging machines were only very gradually invented. For centuries they contented themselves with simply surrounding a city and trying to force it by hunger; an even more favourite device was trickery or treachery; they were neither able to storm a town nor make breaches in the wall. The first machine for storming made use of by the Greeks was the ram, an invention of the Carthaginians, but this, too, was ineffectual against very strong walls. They, therefore, very often resorted to the device of undermining the walls in order to make them fall; sometimes they raised the ground for attack by constructing a mound, or made movable towers in order to enable them to fight from the same height as the garrison. There were various devices, too, for setting the town, or at any rate its fortifications, on fire; and if the local conditions permitted it, they sometimes tried to reduce the besieged to extremities by cutting off their drinking water, or producing an artificial flood. This primitive kind of siege warfare only gave way to a more rational method during the Macedonian wars; it was in particular the merit of King Philip, instead of enclosing a city, to concentrate the attack on one point in the wall, in which breaches were made. The discovery of heavy artillery, the perfection of breaching implements, movable batteries, protective apparatus, and revolving turrets, did not take place till the Alexandrine age.

It was a natural consequence of the geographical position of Greece that seafaring developed far more quickly. Even in the heroic period fairly good ships were built, though they were better suited for coasting than sailing in the open sea. They were moved by twenty to fifty sailors, seated on thwarts on either side of the ship, while their oars were suspended in leathern straps between the rowlocks; if the wind was favourable, they replaced the oars by a sail suspended from the mast by a sail-yard; in the stern, the helmsman directed the course of the ship with the rudder. The ship of Odysseus was thus represented, even in later art, cutting its way through the sea (compare Fig. 191). Still, this picture, which dates from a much later period, cannot give us a proper conception of the build of the Homeric ships: we should rather turn to the representations from ancient vases on Figs. 192 and 192, in spite of the roughness and smallness of the drawing. Both these have a strong spur at the prow, and were, therefore, apparently used for naval warfare, with which the Homeric age was not yet acquainted. Probably the ships of the heroic age had high projecting ends both forward and aft.

As in the Homeric age, so probably also in the following period, the ships were constructed in such a

manner as to be tolerably flat, and accommodate only one line of rowers on each side; consequently, in large ships there would be fifty oarsmen or more on either side. But they soon began to build the ships higher and to arrange the oarsmen in several ranks one above another, in two rows, as in Fig. 194, but more commonly in three rows, and these ships were then called Triremes; in later times, especially after the fourth century, there were four or even six rows, and possibly still more. The arrangement of these rowers’ benches is of particular interest, and is made tolerably clear by the Athenian relief represented in Fig. 195.[G] The rowers’ benches occupied the whole

space of the two long sides of the ship, with the exception of the two ends; they were arranged over one another in rows of different heights, not separated by partitions, but only by the open structure of wood. In each row each rower sat immediately in front of the next man in a straight line, but there is a difference of opinion as to the manner in which the rowing benches were arranged. According to Graser, they were immediately under one another, but the rowers did not sit perpendicularly above each other; but in order to save space as much as possible, and partly to facilitate their movements, they were arranged in such a way that the seat of the next highest was in the same direction and height as the head of the man on the next seat below, so that each man, instead of sitting directly under the man above, sat a little towards the back, and, in moving, kept his arms immediately under the seat of the man above. LemaÎtre, on the other hand, assumes that only the lowest benches were close to the edge, and those

above were removed by the breadth of the thwart, the third by two breadths, in which case the height must have been so arranged that the oar of the man above always passed over the head of the one immediately below. It is impossible to attain any certainty about this matter; both hypotheses are open to objection. For the length of the oars naturally increased in proportion to the distance of the rowers from the water, and those of the highest row must have been longest; according to Graser’s arrangement, the length of the oars increased 1 yard for each row, so that in a ship of five rows the lowest rank had oars 2½ yards long, the highest 6½; according to the arrangement of LemaÎtre, the length was even greater, but there was this advantage, that the longer oars had also longer leverage, and could consequently be more easily controlled. The larger the number of rows, the greater in consequence was the length of the oars, but still they were able to build and control ships of fifteen or sixteen rows. The splendid ship of Ptolemy Philopater is said to have had no less than forty rows, and the length of the highest oars was 18½ yards; but this was not a ship of war, and was only used in calm water—in fact, a modern authority on seafaring regards the whole description of this forty-decker as a satire. Of course, the larger the ships the greater the number of oarsmen required, since the number of rows would be greater; a “trireme” was rowed by 174 men, a “quinquereme” by 310, the arrangement being that each higher row had two men more than the one below, because the bulk of the ship was broadened towards the top. In rowing the greatest regularity of movement was indispensable; this was attained by the command of a special captain, and also by marking time with flutes, so that all the oars might strike the water at the same moment. Here we meet with a problem, hitherto unsolved: how was it possible for the long oars of the upper rows to keep stroke with the short ones of the lower rows? This would have been impossible if the same word of command was given to all the rowing benches, since the stroke of a long oar would naturally require more time than that of a short one. Another difficulty is the great number of oarsmen which would have been required for Attica, where the number of ships was very considerable; still, the number of sailors and marines was very small, as in naval warfare the main object was to sink the enemy’s ship by means of the prow, while they did not trouble much about shooting and fighting at a distance.

As to the construction of the ships, the prow and stern were, generally speaking, of similar build; both, as a rule, ended in curves, but there was usually a lofty decoration of leaves or feathers for the stern, while at the prow they put the image of a god, or the head of an animal, or some other picture, which often showed the name of the boat; these were constructed of wood or bronze, and a flag waved at the top. Below the prow, for the most part under water, lay the strong beak, made of boards firmly fastened into the bow, and protected in front by massive iron points. On the deck there was usually a little canopy at both ends; in Fig. 194 this is seen on the front deck, and apparently also in Fig. 191, though this may be a little tent used as a protection against the sun, such as was often placed on the upper deck. The tower at the back, and the little hut for the helmsman from which he directed both rudders, are wanting on these pictures. The old ships had two rudders, to the right and left of the stern; by means of a mechanical contrivance, which is, however, not represented in the pictures, these two rudders could be directed at the same time in a parallel direction.

In Figs. 192 and 192 we observe near the bow a round opening, corresponding to a similar hole in Fig. 191; the object of this was to enable the anchor-ropes to pass through the ship to the anchors, which resembled our modern ones in all essentials, and were hung up when not in use on little projections at both sides of the prow, which also served the purpose of keeping off the enemy’s ship when avoiding an attack. On the great mainmast there were, as a rule, two square yard sails, fastened one over another, with a third above them, and at the top of the mast two triangular topsails. The ships of war also had two sails following the length of the ship, which were of particular importance for turning when the wind blew from the side. The Attic inscriptions give us many other details about seafaring, but these are only of special interest for professional sailors.