Changes in Greek Warfare and the Resulting Government

 

By G.J.R. Callanta

 

 

 

                --The development of mankind as a society was greatly influenced by the adaptations they were forced to make in order to survive.  Examples of such are: the use of fire, hence enabling for the migration to colder climates, the implementation of tools for better hunting practice, and many others, helped to ensure the continued existence of man.  In addition to these, one of the more important adaptations early man was compelled to take was the changing of subsistence method from hunting and gathering to farming.  Such a shift in strategy was perhaps caused by many different stimuli; two most probable causes, however, may have been the steady increase in population and the decreased availability of game (Fagan, 159).  These reasons (and many others) therefore can explain the emergence of such a change in existence method.  Moreover, because of such a drastic alteration on the condition of man, this eventually resulted in new challenges that forced further development of the early human society.  Problems such as overpopulation and the new concept of land ownership (for farming ) became an overwhelming dilemma that new solutions had to be formulated and hence later implemented.  Due to the rapid increase in population, the need for organized government became apparent and later developed as the growth of society dictated.  In addition, because of the problems in keeping boundary lines and ownership rights, a militia was also organized in order to remedy the new complications that were steadily rising.

                --Through the shift from hunting and fathering to farming, the concept of a complex government and an organized militia both developed. 

                --Although there were much earlier civilizations than the Greeks’, the concept of direct co-relation between warfare and the government can easily be observed in the written histories of Greek civilization.  Furthermore, because of the extensive collections of artifacts such as pottery, remnants of edifices and early written works, the development of both the Greek government and warfare can be traced from the Bronze Age until the Classic Period.  Thus, through the development of Greek Civilization, it is possible to find the direct relationship between government and warfare by closely examining their expansions.

                --The works of Homer, albeit not necessarily accurate, can be used as a feasible model for the form of government and militia the Greeks had before the Dark Ages.  Set in the Bronze Age of Greece (~3000-1200 BC), Homer’s Iliad depicts the epic battle between the Achaeans and Trojans under the alleged auspices of vying for the affections of one woman.  Furthermore, the two main sovereigns, namely Agamemnon and Hector, both commanded large armies and solicited the allegiances of other kingdoms in order to wage war against each other.  Through their accumulated alliances, they were able to undertake a long and costly campaign against one another (the said undertaking eventually resulted in the defeat of the Trojans). 

                --Although most of Homer’s writings regarding the Trojan War was fantastical and greatly exaggerated, he nonetheless made it clear that Greece was divided into different kingdoms and hence under the rule of numerous monarchies.  Through this, it is therefore imperative to view other evidence that will support such a resolution that early Greece was under monarchical rule.   One such evidence would be the Tholos tombs of Mycenae.  By examining these early tombs, it is quite apparent that great care and reverence was accorded these kings upon death (Kirk, 219).   Through this, it is evident that there is a clear stratification by wealth within the populace therefore suggesting that only a handful of people controlled wealth within the society.   Another evidence of a monarchical government during the Bronze Age is the remnants of great Minoan and Mycenaean palaces that lay scattered throughout Greece (Biers, 32-43).  In addition to these, some would even venture the possibility that these same ruins were the palaces of the same heroes that fought in the Trojan War.  Hence, through the writings of Homer, along with the ruins of palaces and remnants of burial grounds, it is easy to conclude that during the Bronze Age of Greek history, men of great fame and stature were given the ranks of nobility.  Moreover, through such ranks the leadership of the community was therefore handed to them.

                --After determining the type of political government the Bronze Age Greeks had, it is then necessary to examine how such monarchs came to power.  In order to ascertain this, it is essential to study the form of warfare the Greeks implemented during this period.  Due to the mostly irregular terrain of Greece (only a fifth is arable land), frequent primitive skirmishes for property rights were fought and through such battles, individual champions usually emerged (May, 1-3).  Upon the success of these champions, they accumulate wealth as a result of their popularity.  Through such wealth, they then further enhance their ability to fight by purchasing weapons that only an elite few can afford to have.  Hence, armaments such as bronze armors, bows and arrows, chariots, and many others, give such champions the advantage they need to further raise themselves above the common populace.  In order to demonstrate the superiority of these well-armed champions, John Warry (author of the book “Warfare in the Classical world”) states, “if a non-leader (without armor) engages a leader (with armor) , the situation was that of a modern infantry being thrown into the path of heavy tanks” (Warry, 14).  Through this statement, it is easy to observe the obvious advantage of these champions over the common populace, and because of such an advantage, these leaders more often than not become resulting leaders of the community.  Furthermore, upon proving themselves worthy of the title of champions, they often become elevated to the status of demigods due to their superior ability (Kirk, 217).  Because of this, they are eventually given the title of kings and are thus given the power to rule the “inferior” classes of men.

                --Upon the above statement, one might ask how warriors were able to prove such superiority in battle that they can be elevated to the extent of being demigods.  This question can be answered only by examining how Bronze Age warfare was conducted.  In order to do this; it is therefore again necessary to examine the works of Homer.  As mentioned before, the type of combat employed during this period was that of one-on-one contest.  In the book Iliad, such a battle between champions was waged (namely against Paris and Menelaus) (Homer, 43).  Such a clash, according to Homer, was initiated by the champions riding into the battlefield on their chariots (transportation for these combatants were necessary because of their heavily armored bodies).  Upon closing in on each other, they then dismount from their chariots and start hurling insults back and forth.  By slandering one another, the champions were thus able to gain the cheers and support of their comrades and thus gaining confidence in order to pursue the conflict.  After the jeering and the taunting subside, they each get the chance to fling a javelin at one another hence getting the opportunity to end the conflict upon hitting one or the other.  If this long distance confrontation falls short of its purpose, the next stage of the battle is then employed.  This is done through hand-to-hand combat.  Each wielding a bronze sword, the two combatants fling themselves at each other hoping that their superiority in skill (and their favor from the gods) would prevail and thus win them the battle.  Upon victory in many similar battles, the champion often gains the respect and allegiance of his peers.  Through this, he becomes regarded as a demigod and earns his place in the forefront of society. 

--Through the works of Homer, it is easier to understand how the warfare of Bronze Age Greece was conducted.  Moreover, through the manner they waged war, it is then possible to observe the way individual champions performed in battle and thus increase their fame.  Through such acclaim, these warriors later become placed in the vanguard of their communities and thus gain the allegiance of their comrades.  Upon this achievement, these champions then get elevated as leaders of their societies and thus become monarchs of governments.

--Henceforth, through early Greek writings, evidences of architectures and gravesites, it is then possible to observe the direct relationship between the way warfare in the Bronze Age was conducted and the monarchical type of government that resulted.

--After the Bronze Age of Greece, a brief period of great change in the Greek social structure occurred and the sudden collapse of the earlier monarchies followed.  Although the cause of such a drastic alteration of society is unascertained, this period, known as the Dark Ages (~1050-900BC), resulted in a vacuum for leaders in the society due to the lack of an organized government.  Thus, after the Dark Ages, a new form of leader emerged, that of a champion for democracy and “relative” equality.

--The development of Greece, especially in Athens, after the Dark Ages was marred by much political trouble (it is however evident that there was a growing change in the political atmosphere of the country).  Initially ruled by aristocrats, the Athenian government was comprised of three elected offices, namely: the Archon, the Archon Basileus, and the Polemarch.  Although some political decisions were given to the people, the aristocrats however still fashioned the government to their advantage.  Hence, in certain aspects of its machinations, this type of government was similar to monarchical rule.  Due to this, political unrest was prevalent and was therefore marked by the numerous attempts of tyrants to seize control of the populace.  In the midst of such agitation, a Greek politician named Solon was elected to serve office.  Known as the “father of Democracy,” Solon made the different political stations available to non-aristocrats by making the requirement to hold office based on wealth and not by aristocratic birth.  Because of this, true democracy was initiated by creating a relative form of equality.  In addition, Solon also encouraged the trade and the manufacturing of goods thus elevating the standard of living in the Athenian community.  Furthermore, he also created an assembly called the Ecclesia that mainly comprised of lower class Athenian citizens thus giving a voice to the inferior population of the city. 

--As time progressed, the inception of democracy became even more established during the Classical Period of Athens (~480-400 BC).    Under the rule of Pericles, the availability of political positions became even more accessible due to the new rule that civic offices became paid occupations.  Trough this, those who held office did not have time divide their time between their livelihoods and performing public service.  Furthermore, Pericles also promoted the arts in Athens thus making the building of large and more ornate structures necessary.  Because of increase in patronage, the demand for architects, sculptors, and artisans became heightened and thus giving them the change to accumulate wealth by working more regularly.  Through this, they were then able to elevate their standards of living therefore making themselves relatively equal to those who were once perceived greater than they were.

--The concept of equality was quite alien to the Greeks especially before and perhaps during the Dark Ages.  It is therefore quite odd that it became so popular after this period, especially at the end of the Orientalizing Period (~700-600 BC) until the Classical Period of Athens (~$80-400 BC).  Because of such a phenomenon, it is necessary to examine the most plausible cause for such a change in the belief systems of the people.

--One of the most obvious changes in the way Greeks functioned (especially at the end of the Dark Ages) is in the way they conducted warfare.  Before the Dark Ages, duels between heroes were the standard way the Greeks fought skirmishes.  However, upon the end of this period, there was a shift in the preferences from fighting in single contests to group warfare called the Hoplite.  This form of war strategy  was actually much easier for the common people to participate in because there was hardly any training involved and hence they were able to continue to work on their fields until conflicts ensue (Jones, 1).  In addition, the large body of men called the phalanx, which comprised the Hoplite army, was usually made of friends, neighbors, and colleagues therefore giving a semblance of familiarity among the soldiers (Jones, 2).  Therefore,  the shift from individual combat to group warfare may have been the key to wide spread acceptance of the concept of equality (possibly resulting in the idea of democracy).   In order to further elaborate on this, it is then necessary to observe the manner in which Hoplite warfare was conducted (which resulted in parity in the battlefield and later on, possibly, in the government). 

--The primary objective of the phalanx offensive was to push through the other group’s defenses.  This is done by heavily reinforcing one’s battalion with multiple lines of armored soldiers up to fifty lines deep (Jones, 3).  Furthermore, only the front lines actually engage in battle using large, rounded shields and long thrusting spears while the rest of the lines pushed forward.  Upon the defeat of the soldier in the primary line, the man behind him takes his place in battle thus covering the breach in formation (Jones, 2).  Because of this method of combat, even the most unskilled fighter can participate in the skirmish and thus be integral in the result of the conflict.  This is because the emphasis of the Hoplite strategy is not on individual fighting prowess but is instead highly dependent on the number of men working together to defeat the enemy (such an idea can be closely comparable to the notion of democracy).  In addition, the weapons and the armor of the Hoplite soldier were standardized to all fighters that most of the people can supply their own armaments.  Such tools were as follows:  bronze helmets, bronze breastplates, large shields, short swords, thrusting spears, and bronze shin guards.  Because the part-time soldier can continue to work on his fields due to the low requirement for training, he can raise enough wealth to acquire such relatively expensive armaments.  Thus, because of the greater availability of these weapons and the low requirement of training necessary to wield them, almost anyone who wished to join the battle can participate. 

--In addition, because of the lack of specialization in this type of warfare, the generals and nobles of high rank did not have any unique purpose in the conflict.  Therefore, on account of this, even the leaders of the armies participated in the battle alongside the common soldiers (Jones, 4).  To elaborate on this, Archer Jones, author of the book The Art of War in the Western World, states, “Epaminondas, who was a great general and strategist, still fought alongside his men in the phalanx upon defeating a superior Spartan force around 371 BC.”  He further emphasizes this by stating, “The general had no better task, since he could not influence the course of the battle after it has begun” (Jones, 7).  Therefore, because of the lack of specialization in this type of battle strategy, no man can elevate himself and make him superior over the body of soldiers by doing anything out of the ordinary.  Thus, due to this, the champion who was once believed to have been a demigod is now made obsolete.  Furthermore, the warrior of noble rank has now become a soldier who serves alongside common fighters and functions with them as a single body.  Because of this, it is then apparent that the inability of any one man to distinguish himself in the field of battle may have led to parity.  Moreover, the necessity of working together as one entity also may have greatly influenced the idea of equality.  Therefore, through the inception of the Hoplite army, the concept of equality (regardless of rank, title, or occupation) became a more palatable notion and thus eventually was incorporated into the Greek culture and later into the political system.

--Through the equality the Greek men experienced in the battlefield, the concept of democracy was perhaps formulated and thus applied into the government.  Because of this, Greece enjoyed a new type of political organization that mainly focused on the upholding of equality within the populace.  Furthermore, with the onset of the Hoplite army, any man (noble or base) was given the chance to serve his country and thus instilled in him the idea of civic duty and the desire to serve his homeland.  Perhaps because of this, men may have realized their ability to serve politically regardless of their rank or occupation.  Such an idea may have then started the notion that it is not only the aristocrats who were capable of holding office, but also those who were competent and willing to serve if the public agreed on it.

--Due to this new concept of public service, the civic organization of ancient Greece evolved from an aristocracy into a fully functioning democracy.  By the actions of Solon Pericles, and other great men, the idea of relative equality became even more encouraged through the amendments they made within the political system of Greece.  By creating reforms like the changing of the requirements for holding public office (from birth to wealth), making civic positions a paid occupation, the creation the Ecclesia, and many others, the democratic leaders of Athens made the lower class citizens of the city more involved in the political structure of Greece.

--Hence, through the inception of Hoplite warfare, Greece became the source of democracy that later spread throughout the world, affecting great changes in many other continents.  Moreover, by initiating a uniform ground for soldiers to operate in, the idea of parity among comrades-in-arms transferred into the concept of civic equality and thus influencing the development of this political system.  Furthermore, through the Hoplite strategy of working together in pursuit of a common goal, the idea of a unified, democratic government may have been further strengthened as the notion of commonality was accepted in the political system.

--In conclusion, due to the constant changing of circumstances, humanity was forced to make adaptations that completely altered their social structures.  Starting from hunting and gathering bands that required little political organizations due to the smaller size of their populations, human society transformed into a more complex and stratified arrangement.  Such a development was prompted by the new subsistence strategy of farming.  Because of this, men were made to become more sedentary which induced populations to grow steadily.  Upon the growth of populations, the need for more complex political organizations and military structures emerged and was quickly remedied as seen from the development of Greek civilization.

--Because the need for political structure and military organization arose at the same time (and was perhaps caused by the same stimuli), it is then possible to conclude that both are immediately related to one another.  Furthermore, since the concept of warfare and government is in direct co-relation, it is also plausible that they greatly influenced each other.  Such an idea was observed in the development of Greek warfare and civic organization.

--During the Bronze Age, the form of warfare employed was one-to-one combat between champions.  Such a strategy automatically singled out the most skilled person among the ranks to do battle.  Since the most skilled usually meant the most trained and therefore the wealthiest, only the nobles were able to elevate themselves in the battlefield.  Thus, it is quite obvious that these same champions, due to their increased popularity and their cult following, also became leaders and monarchs of the Greek political system.  Hence, through this type of warfare, a dingle ruler emerged due to his many advantages, and thus the kind of combat employed during this time directly influenced the political make-up of the society.

--After the Dark Ages of Greece, a new type of warfare was initiated thus making the single champion obsolete.  This type of combat is known as Hoplite warfare.  Through this, the idea of unity and equality was introduced in the battle and perhaps later in society.  Because of this, men of different ranks, titles, and occupations were able to function as one entity and unite to form a single task.  Moreover, because of the lack in specialization needed in this type of warfare, the heroes of old were no longer emulated and thus men of great skill no longer stood out but were equal to the weakest man.  Due to this, the notion of democracy was perhaps initiated and hence became the main concept of the new form of government in Greece.  In addition, through the inception of democracy, men such as Solon, Pericles, and other were able to create a civil structure that was geared more towards relative equality.  Thus, they were able to endorse the idea that all free men must have the right to serve his homeland and that every free-born Greek should have a chance to make decisions regarding the welfare of his country.

--Thus, by looking at the development of both military organization and government in Greece (before and after the Dark Ages), it is quite plausible to state that the type of warfare employed during specific periods directly influenced the type of accepted government.

 

 

Biers, William R. The Archaeology of Greece. London: Cornell University Press, 1996.

 

Fagan, Brian.  People of Earth. California: Longman Inc.., 1998.

 

Homer. Iliad.  Samuel Butler (translator), Chicago:  Barnes and Nobles Books, 1995.

 

Jones, Archer.  The Art of War in the Western World.  Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

 

Kirk, G.S. The Nature of Greek Myths. London: Penguin Books, 1974.

 

Warry, John.  Warfare in the Classical World. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

return to main page