Greetings to the board,

My question, is a several part question regarding Ancient Greece in the Archaic period and how it related to the nearby Middle East and surrounding world. Before someone asks, yes this is in regards to my current tl, where I would like to expand upon Europe, an area that I have little knowledge of, especially Ancient Greece.

1. Most broadly, if one was to list the major powers in Greece during the period of 650-590 BCE, which would be the case? I am under the impression, that Athens was already a democracy and under the rule of Draco or he as a legislator. Was Athens already preeminent in this period, also was Sparta of a powerful skill yet? Further, where were the most major points of Hellenic commerce in mainland Greece?

2. In the year 600 BCE, where all had Hellenic colonists spread to? I have a general idea on this, but am not entirely sure. Also, to what extent is Asia Minor hellenized? It may be conjectural, but it would be good to have some estimates. Lydia is in its dominant period in the late 600s BCE, however, it would seem likely that much of Ionia is already Hellenic by this point. Are there any ongoing colonisation attempts?

3. What was the general Greek view of the Lydian kingdom? If Lydia was to hold Asia minor, would there be the same resistance/defiance to Lydia as to the Achaemenid empire? Conversely, what might be the general view of the board on the opinion Greeks would take of the Assyrian empire, if it was to conquer Lydia or conversely, if Media is to conquer Lydia?

4. Internally, what sort of dynamics were at work in Greece at the time? Any sort of rivalries, political developments, intellectual movements of note that would be important?

5.What type of relation did the major Greek city states have with the peoples to their north, namely:

-Thracians
-Dacians
-Scythians/Cimmerians

To what degree would Greek city states be willing to support or contrast against the Scythians? Is there any sort of benefit that would lead to them aligning to a major empire and pushing out varied steppe nomads?

6. What sort of military capabilities do the Greek cities have at the moment? Any sorts of trends or styles?

7. I am sure considering the Greek objections to prostration, that the Greeks would greatly resent the idea of the Assyrian empire, and its stupendous titles. Namely, 'kings of the universe,' 'kings of all peoples,' etc... These are compounded in many ways in general court customs. How might the Greeks view such a hegemonic empire such as Assyria with its often divine connotations in kingship. Can the Greek states openly accept these?


I am aware that this is a lot of work for an answer, however, it would be much appreciated for some replies regarding these topics!
 
For a starter I do feel you need to precise the question: the Archaic age ended with either the appearance of Democracy on the greek political stage with the series of events I believe can be fairly called the Athenian Revolution or with the Greco-Persian Wars. In either case, the Archaic Age ended far before 400 BC, a date that would include most of defining events of the Classical Age.
 
For a starter I do feel you need to precise the question: the Archaic age ended with either the appearance of Democracy on the greek political stage with the series of events I believe can be fairly called the Athenian Revolution or with the Greco-Persian Wars. In either case, the Archaic Age ended far before 400 BC, a date that would include most of defining events of the Classical Age.

Well, I framed it as Archaic in the sense that part of my question is in reference to that era. If a question from 600 BCE can be answered by evidences we have in 470 BCE, that too is fine.
 
1 Athens was a minor city state that nobody payed attention too. They were under the rule of oligarchy that appointed Draco around 620 to codify the laws he was very harsh. Athens became a democracy in 508 bc. Sparta had its hierarchy and was dominant in the pelopnnesan peninsula

2 at around 600 the Greeks had colonized southern Italy the Crimea and had settled the city of massalia modern day marseille colonization was still in progress in these regions Ionia had been fully settled by this point for centuries.

3 Lydia did historically force the Greek colonies in Ionia into vassalage but didn’t try to Amex them if they or any one else did the mother cites in the mainland might send over aid when they rebel

4 in the 500s the first philosophical schools were forming in Ionia

5 Thracians and Dacians were barbarians the Greeks didn’t pay much attention to. The Scythians were a problem for the Crimean Greeks who had something of a peace with them. The Greeks in the Crimea would unite if the threat was great enough if they were nearing total destruction the mainland Greeks would send aid as it was there breadbasket but not sooner since the Black Sea flowed out into the Aegean making it very dangerous

6the Greeks at this point used hoplites in a phalanx

7 the Greek weren’t opposed to just prostration but any form of rule that would take away their liberty for the Greeks this was self determination for their city states
 
6the Greeks at this point used hoplites in a phalanx
Hoplites yes, phalanx no. Archaeologists can see by patterns of land use that there wouldn't be enough landowners with the means to afford the hoplite panoply, and the few contemporary literary sources we have that describe warfare do not describe phalanx combat; the word phalanx is not used in this sense until Xenophon. The Spartans arguably didn't adopt the phalanx until after 479 BC; at Plataea, they are described fighting in one jumbled up mass with their helots.
 
Hoplites yes, phalanx no. Archaeologists can see by patterns of land use that there wouldn't be enough landowners with the means to afford the hoplite panoply, and the few contemporary literary sources we have that describe warfare do not describe phalanx combat; the word phalanx is not used in this sense until Xenophon. The Spartans arguably didn't adopt the phalanx until after 479 BC; at Plataea, they are described fighting in one jumbled up mass with their helots.

What do you mean by a jumbled mass? Did they not consider frontlines and so forth? What sort of weaponry are they using for a jumbled mass?
 
What do you mean by a jumbled mass? Did they not consider frontlines and so forth? What sort of weaponry are they using for a jumbled mass?
Even armies that theoretically used the phalanx in this period didn't have recognizable ranks and files; when the Spartans deployed for battle at Plataea, there was no separation between the light armed helots on the heavy infantry. The hoplites would have carried either an Arive or Boiotian shield and some combination of spears, swords, and javelins, while the light armed troops had a motley combination of slings, javelins, bows, and rocks picked up off the ground. We should really picture Greek armies in battle more as armed mobs than organized armies.
 
Even armies that theoretically used the phalanx in this period didn't have recognizable ranks and files; when the Spartans deployed for battle at Plataea, there was no separation between the light armed helots on the heavy infantry. The hoplites would have carried either an Arive or Boiotian shield and some combination of spears, swords, and javelins, while the light armed troops had a motley combination of slings, javelins, bows, and rocks picked up off the ground. We should really picture Greek armies in battle more as armed mobs than organized armies.

What of Greek cavalry in this period? I am guessing that they lacked lancers and horse archers? In Assyria at the time, we have both lancer heavier cavalry, light scouting cavalry and the free moving Assyrian horse archer. There too, in the Mesopotamian ensemble, was javelin cavalry, who operated as mobile barrage units. As the reign of Ashurbanipal reached a zenith, horse archers reached the zenith of their use, as the Assyrian army relied heavily upon its cavalry force in pitched battles and its infantry in sieges. How might Greek soldiers of this early period prepare for such an enemy that uses horse archers in combination with lancers to a degree more reminiscent of Scythians?

In otl, we have one example of an Assyrian force engaging some type of Greco-Phyrgian army in Anatolia and Cyprus. The Assyrian army, apparently using Phoenician ships landed in various places and dealt blows to the Greek forces scattering them. This was in the reign of Sargon II 722-705 BCE. Later there was, possible other small battles, but these are left unspoken of by Assyro-Babylonian chronicles. Also, why would, in your opinion, would Phrygia and Lydia seem to have used Greek or at least west of Anatolia, mercenary and troop ensembles if they did not have some sort of value? There must have been some reason that the Anatolian states of Lydia-Phrygia would wish to use Greek soldiers against Assyria or the steppe nomads, such as Scythians-Cimmerians. Do you have any idea?
 
Greek cavalry aside from the Thessalians and the Macedonians was utterly terrible. It was a lightly armed and poorly if at all armored. Greece isn't really cavalry country and horses were quite expensive to raise. Men like Xenophon certainly wanted to improve Greek cavalry but he's active at the end of the Peloponnesian war, a century after your timeframe.
 
Greek cavalry aside from the Thessalians and the Macedonians was utterly terrible. It was a lightly armed and poorly if at all armored. Greece isn't really cavalry country and horses were quite expensive to raise. Men like Xenophon certainly wanted to improve Greek cavalry but he's active at the end of the Peloponnesian war, a century after your timeframe.
This is complete bunk. Pretty much the only Greek region that didn't have good cavalry was the Peloponnese and maybe some islands; the Athenians, Thebans, Sicilians, Chaldikians, Ionians, Italiotes etc. all had quite effective cavalry. Very small numbers were enough to tip the balance of whole campaigns; combined with peltasts, they tore hoplite armies apart at Spartolos, and just fifty Sicilian horsemen were able to play a Theban army like a fiddle, drawing them forward and forcing them back all along the line.

What of Greek cavalry in this period? I am guessing that they lacked lancers and horse archers? In Assyria at the time, we have both lancer heavier cavalry, light scouting cavalry and the free moving Assyrian horse archer. There too, in the Mesopotamian ensemble, was javelin cavalry, who operated as mobile barrage units. As the reign of Ashurbanipal reached a zenith, horse archers reached the zenith of their use, as the Assyrian army relied heavily upon its cavalry force in pitched battles and its infantry in sieges. How might Greek soldiers of this early period prepare for such an enemy that uses horse archers in combination with lancers to a degree more reminiscent of Scythians?

In otl, we have one example of an Assyrian force engaging some type of Greco-Phyrgian army in Anatolia and Cyprus. The Assyrian army, apparently using Phoenician ships landed in various places and dealt blows to the Greek forces scattering them. This was in the reign of Sargon II 722-705 BCE. Later there was, possible other small battles, but these are left unspoken of by Assyro-Babylonian chronicles. Also, why would, in your opinion, would Phrygia and Lydia seem to have used Greek or at least west of Anatolia, mercenary and troop ensembles if they did not have some sort of value? There must have been some reason that the Anatolian states of Lydia-Phrygia would wish to use Greek soldiers against Assyria or the steppe nomads, such as Scythians-Cimmerians. Do you have any idea?

Regarding archaic cavalry, we have lots of vase depictions of armored horsemen carrying lances and/or javelins; they probably would have fought dispersed as part of the pre-phalanx crowd of mixed arms. Scythian mercenaries are recorded in Athenian use from a relatively early date. Regarding the employment of Greek mercenaries, I tend to think it's a relatively simple case. Numbers are always an advantage, and mercenaries are a good way to turn money into numbers. Greeks are available to fight for pay, so they get hired.
 
Last edited:
Any sort of definite answer as to when the phalanx became the dominant tactic is basically impossible to give. We have no contemporary historiographic sources for the archaic era. Pictorial sources strongly suggest ordered, uniform lines of hoplites, though. Even taking artistic license in the composition of such imagery into account, it seems convincing that the spread of the heavy panoply drove development of such formations as it greatly reduces the mobility of the wearer.

If we accept the current trend of dating Homer to the immediate pre-Archaic or Early Archaic era, transposing the social structure and military tactics of his own day into the Trojan war, then we can assume a more ritualistic way of fighting around 700 BC, with a heavy emphasis on singular combat between 'noblemen'. On the other end of developments is the phalanx of the 5th century.

As to the other questions: Corinth is the dominant exporter of vases (meaning all sorts of ceramic vessels) until the end of the sixth century and thus culturally and economically highly influential. In the beginning of the archaic era we've got the orientalizing style with motives from the Near East that is then supplanted by the Greek black-figure style. Corinth and to a lesser degree Argos are the primary producers, while póleis like Thebes and Sparta might be militarily powerful but produce only second-rate ceramics. Trading is generally based on bartering - there is no coinage until the very end of the Archaic era.
 
Last edited:
Any sort of definite answer as to when the phalanx became the dominant tactic is basically impossible to give. We have no contemporary historiographic sources for the archaic era. Pictorial sources strongly suggest ordered, uniform lines of hoplites, though. Even taking artistic license in the composition of such imagery into account, it seems convincing that the spread of the heavy panoply drove development of such formations as it greatly reduces the mobility of the wearer.

No, they don't. The Chigi olpe is basically the only example depiction of heavy infantry combat that even suggests ordered lines, and even then, it doesn't really when you actually analyze it. It shows a row of hoplites in combat (using missile weapons, indicating that missile troops haven't been driven out of the main battle line like they later would be), but it also shows another, separate group (different number of men) running up to support them, while another group is still donning their equipment in a rush. The literary evidence, Homer and Tyrtaios, clearly suggest something much more like a mob of mixed arms than a hoplite phalanx. The archaeological evidence suggests the hoplites would have been vastly outnumbered by light troops, as the economy was far more stratified into a binary of rich landowners and poor tenants than it would be during the attested period of the hoplite phalanx. Moreover, what we see as the phalanx becomes better attested is that the panoply gets lighter , with more and more armor being discarded, until in the fourth century the best trained troops in greece wear only a helmet in addition to their sword and shield, if that. The heavy armor of the archaic hoplite developed in a chaotic environment where threats could come from any angle, not one where the presence of thousands more heavy infantry shielded him indirectly. The survival of the mixed mob deployment into the Persian invasion indicates the phalanx was relatively new, and Herodotos doesn't even believe it's a Greek practice, attributing the division of the army into separate bodies of heavy, light, and cavalry troops to the Medes. As such, belief in an Archaic hoplite phalanx rests on a very weak body of evidence compared to the opposite view.
 
Agreed on the smaller proportion of hoplites compared to the Classical era as well as the lack of what we'd call a phalanx in pictorial sources - which is why I wrote ordered, uniform lines. I was obviously thinking of the Chigi vase but there are other (although admittedly later) examples. I'll have to check Snodgrass for specifics when I have the time. I'd argue that the Chigi vase quite clearly shows the hoplites advancing in orderly lines and with overlapping shields. Also, they are clearly carrying longer, heavier spears in addition to the javelins. Not even getting into the discussion of whether spears were used over- or underhand... ;)

As to the literary evidence - in short, I'd stress the word literary rather than evidence dealing with both the two earlier poets as well as Herodotus. But sure, as I wrote before: taking Homer to describe the military tactics of his own day ~700 BC we're seeing something closer to what you describe as 'mob deployment'. Which hardly contradicts the gradual development from ~650 BC (rough dating of the Chigi vase) to the 5th century of the Classical phalanx - which is not to imply that the development was finished by 500 BC but rather in the course of the 5th century.

Regarding the lightening of the panoply: the introduction of the linothorax as a lighter but also - sadly - highly perishable piece of armour might heavily skew the archaelogical record. Which is already so severely lacking in surviving pieces that quantitative statements are quite difficult. But it is certainly convincing that in the later development of the phalanx, speed became more important than protection - especially reading Xenophon. Which is outside the scope of this thread, however.
 
Agreed on the smaller proportion of hoplites compared to the Classical era as well as the lack of what we'd call a phalanx in pictorial sources - which is why I wrote ordered, uniform lines. I was obviously thinking of the Chigi vase but there are other (although admittedly later) examples. I'll have to check Snodgrass for specifics when I have the time. I'd argue that the Chigi vase quite clearly shows the hoplites advancing in orderly lines and with overlapping shields. Also, they are clearly carrying longer, heavier spears in addition to the javelins. Not even getting into the discussion of whether spears were used over- or underhand... ;)

As to the literary evidence - in short, I'd stress the word literary rather than evidence dealing with both the two earlier poets as well as Herodotus. But sure, as I wrote before: taking Homer to describe the military tactics of his own day ~700 BC we're seeing something closer to what you describe as 'mob deployment'. Which hardly contradicts the gradual development from ~650 BC (rough dating of the Chigi vase) to the 5th century of the Classical phalanx - which is not to imply that the development was finished by 500 BC but rather in the course of the 5th century.

Regarding the lightening of the panoply: the introduction of the linothorax as a lighter but also - sadly - highly perishable piece of armour might heavily skew the archaelogical record. Which is already so severely lacking in surviving pieces that quantitative statements are quite difficult. But it is certainly convincing that in the later development of the phalanx, speed became more important than protection - especially reading Xenophon. Which is outside the scope of this thread, however.

When Xenophon led the Not-Ten-Thousand during their Katabasis, the 8,000 or so mercenaries didn't have 50 cuirasses between them, and artistic depictions of hoplites from the 5th and especially 4th century often depict them wearing no armor, not even linen cuirasses; the panoply was dramatically lighter now that warfare was somewhat better organized. The age of the 'men of bronze' was one of mob tactics until there were enough hoplites for more regular deployments to be possible.

We shouldn't assume the development of the phalanx was gradual from the mid 7th century, since the thing that makes a phalanx possible -a large number of independent farmers- happens almost all at once, at the end of the 6th century BC, and at the beginning of the fifth century, wasn't yet complete, as seen by the Spartans at Plataea. Orderly lines continue to be more noted by their absence; men marching in step is considered very noteworthy in the writings of Thucydides and Xenophon, and Herodotos is never able to tell us how many ranks deep a formation is.

I think it's interesting you're willing to marginalize literary evidence like Tyrtaios while hanging so much on a very weak piece of artistic evidence. The Chigi vase comes from a region -Etruria- which we know didn't develop near, ordered lines on the actual battlefield; considering the fact that its style was never replicated, this piece really should be considered more of a one-off curiosity, a failed experiment at stylizing infantry combat, than the lynchpin in less-than-credible historians like Hanson's arguments about the nature of Western civilization.
 
IIRC Dark age Greece had aristocrats wearing full body bronze armour and javelins+swords as the "main" heavy infantry, supported by lighter attendants (ala pre-Sengoku samurai + attendants). By Lelantine war (the only international war with coalitions of cities between Trojan War and Persian War), many polis had adopted hoplite lines where neighbours supported each other in the battle array, though not as disciplined as latter-day hoplites.

AFAIK, Sparte seems to be the first adopted of hoplite formations, since the Messenian Wars descriptions sound not unlike Classical age descriptions of hoplite phalanxes crushing into undiscplined barbarian lines, cf. Xenophon.

750 BC said:
Pausanias' description of the battle creates an apparent historical paradox. He refers to "the special characters of the two forces in their behaviors and in their frame of mind."[23] The Messenians "ran charging at the Lakonians reckless of their lives ...."[24] "Some of them leapt forward out of rank and did glorious deeds of courage."[25] The Spartans on the other hand were "careful not to break rank."[24] Says Pausanias, "... knowledge of war was something they had been brought up to, they kept a deeper formation, expecting the Messenians not to hold a line against them for as long as their own would hold ...."[25]

Of course, this is quite controversial (there is a big chance that Pausanias did what many pre-modern historians did and reinterpreted the myths of long-gone generations with contemporary armies.

Seems current academical consensus is the adoption of standardised phalanx army by middle 7th century BC. But usually standardisation of soldiers was done after a few generations of people fighting with that style first. Cf. Marian reforms, Western chivalry adoption of plate armour (took a century), adoption of guns.

FOR the distinction between mobs and phalanx, I want to compare the hoplitai evolution with Germanic array of battle. From Roman Age tribes to Viking Age kingdoms, the Germans are enamored with the so-called shield-wall, and a strange mobile charging formation named boar's tusk.

Since even unarmoured barbarians with non-standardised shields can do a general charge with momentum behind them... How would an elite formation of men of bronze fare? Of course, the latter is highly vulnerable to formations of relatively lighter men whose heavy enough to endure, which is how hoplite formation properly begun.
 
Last edited:
A little outside of the OP by Naucratis was founded in Egypt likely between 625-570 BC. Whether Al-Mina was a Greek trading post or not is still up for debate
 
IIRC Dark age Greece had aristocrats wearing full body bronze armour and javelins+swords as the "main" heavy infantry, supported by lighter attendants (ala pre-Sengoku samurai + attendants). By Lelantine war (the only international war with coalitions of cities between Trojan War and Persian War), many polis had adopted hoplite lines where neighbours supported each other in the battle array, though not as disciplined as latter-day hoplites.

AFAIK, Sparte seems to be the first adopted of hoplite formations, since the Messenian Wars descriptions sound not unlike Classical age descriptions of hoplite phalanxes crushing into undiscplined barbarian lines, cf. Xenophon.



Of course, this is quite controversial (there is a big chance that Pausanias did what many pre-modern historians did and reinterpreted the myths of long-gone generations with contemporary armies.

Seems current academical consensus is the adoption of standardised phalanx army by middle 7th century BC. But usually standardisation of soldiers was done after a few generations of people fighting with that style first. Cf. Marian reforms, Western chivalry adoption of plate armour (took a century), adoption of guns.

FOR the distinction between mobs and phalanx, I want to compare the hoplitai evolution with Germanic array of battle. From Roman Age tribes to Viking Age kingdoms, the Germans are enamored with the so-called shield-wall, and a strange mobile charging formation named boar's tusk.

Since even unarmoured barbarians with non-standardised shields can do a general charge with momentum behind them... How would an elite formation of men of bronze fare? Of course, the latter is highly vulnerable to formations of relatively lighter men whose heavy enough to endure, which is how hoplite formation properly begun.

The Spartans were if anything the last people to adopt phalanxes, since they're described at Plataea as fighting in the quasi Homeric, Tyrtaios style of the archaic mob mixed with light troops. Pausanius is an incredibly late source; against the weight of evidence against an archaic phalanx, his word counts for very little. The emerging consensus (especially in Britain and the Netherlands) is for a very late phalanx, not the seventh century; people like Hanson and Kagan are very much on the way out. The simple fact is that there's almost no evidence for archaic phalanxes, and lots of evidence against them. People who are holding out on this are really not taking an objective view of the history.
 
The Spartans were if anything the last people to adopt phalanxes, since they're described at Plataea as fighting in the quasi Homeric, Tyrtaios style of the archaic mob mixed with light troops. Pausanius is an incredibly late source; against the weight of evidence against an archaic phalanx, his word counts for very little. The emerging consensus (especially in Britain and the Netherlands) is for a very late phalanx, not the seventh century; people like Hanson and Kagan are very much on the way out. The simple fact is that there's almost no evidence for archaic phalanxes, and lots of evidence against them. People who are holding out on this are really not taking an objective view of the history.

Understood. How did the phalanx develop then? What sort of pressures led to this construction if any?
 
Understood. How did the phalanx develop then? What sort of pressures led to this construction if any?
At the end of the 6th century, much more land of middling quality in Greece came under cultivation; in archaeology, we see a transition from a few clustered villages to many farmsteads in marginal lands, indicating substantial growth in the number of independent farmers. These men were usually able to fight as hoplites, so now it was possible to make a battle line out of heavy troops exclusively, with the light armed being pushed into screening duties.
 
Top