What do you think?
Rate this book
Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece
A major contribution to the debate over ancient Greek warfare by some of the world's leading scholarsMen of Bronze takes up one of the most important and fiercely debated subjects in ancient history and how did archaic Greek hoplites fight, and what role, if any, did hoplite warfare play in shaping the Greek polis? In the nineteenth century, George Grote argued that the phalanx battle formation of the hoplite farmer citizen-soldier was the driving force behind a revolution in Greek social, political, and cultural institutions. Throughout the twentieth century scholars developed and refined this grand hoplite narrative with the help of archaeology. But over the past thirty years scholars have criticized nearly every major tenet of this orthodoxy. Indeed, the revisionists have persuaded many specialists that the evidence demands a new interpretation of the hoplite narrative and a rewriting of early Greek history. Men of Bronze gathers leading scholars to advance the current debate and bring it to a broader audience of ancient historians, classicists, archaeologists, and general readers.After explaining the historical context and significance of the hoplite question, the book assesses and pushes forward the debate over the traditional hoplite narrative and demonstrates why it is at a crucial turning point. Instead of reaching a consensus, the contributors have sharpened their differences, providing new evidence, explanations, and theories about the origin, nature, strategy, and tactics of the hoplite phalanx and its effect on Greek culture and the rise of the polis.The contributors include Paul Cartledge, Lin Foxhall, John Hale, Victor Davis Hanson, Donald Kagan, Peter Krentz, Kurt Raaflaub, Adam Schwartz, Anthony Snodgrass, Hans van Wees, and Gregory Viggiano.
312 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
13 people are currently reading
271 people want to read
About the author
Donald Kagan
128 books240 followersDonald Kagan (May 1, 1932 – August 6, 2021) was a Lithuanian-born American historian and classicist at Yale University specializing in ancient Greece. He formerly taught in the Department of History at Cornell University. Kagan was considered among the foremost American scholars of Greek history and is notable for his four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 14, 2020
Men of bronze, feet of clay
This is a fascinating collection of papers presented at a conference, debating how the ancient Greeks fought and how this manner of combat played out -- the "hoplites" being men with large shields and spears, and often a lot of armor, fighting on foot in hand-to-hand rather than relying on bows, javelins, and horses as many contemporaries did. Seeing these scholars marshal their evidence from archaeology, written records, and the images on pottery and sculpture is very interesting, but you do get the feeling that a lot of this debate is setting up a false dichotomy (the alternatives presented are very extreme and seem to ignore the fact that the Greeks themselves described "open" and "close" order formations), so why the scholars choose to make this debate all-or-nothing is hard to understand except as a battle of egos.
Still, the prevailing view that compares hoplite warfare to a rugby scrimmage is patently ridiculous and gets a good thrashing here; I only wish the alternative presented, which suggests that hoplites fought like tribal warriors in modern New Guinea, was not equally absurd.
Some of papers are extremely technical but most can be followed by amateurs like me so I thought it was well worth reading as a summary of recent scholarship on a perennial topic. The related debates about social and political roots of the hoplite "revolution" in Greek warfare are interesting as well.
This is a fascinating collection of papers presented at a conference, debating how the ancient Greeks fought and how this manner of combat played out -- the "hoplites" being men with large shields and spears, and often a lot of armor, fighting on foot in hand-to-hand rather than relying on bows, javelins, and horses as many contemporaries did. Seeing these scholars marshal their evidence from archaeology, written records, and the images on pottery and sculpture is very interesting, but you do get the feeling that a lot of this debate is setting up a false dichotomy (the alternatives presented are very extreme and seem to ignore the fact that the Greeks themselves described "open" and "close" order formations), so why the scholars choose to make this debate all-or-nothing is hard to understand except as a battle of egos.
Still, the prevailing view that compares hoplite warfare to a rugby scrimmage is patently ridiculous and gets a good thrashing here; I only wish the alternative presented, which suggests that hoplites fought like tribal warriors in modern New Guinea, was not equally absurd.
Some of papers are extremely technical but most can be followed by amateurs like me so I thought it was well worth reading as a summary of recent scholarship on a perennial topic. The related debates about social and political roots of the hoplite "revolution" in Greek warfare are interesting as well.
January 16, 2016
Книга представляет собой сборник статей ведущих на сегодняшний день историков по гоплитам. Написано все это на основе проходившей несколько лет назад конференции, которая и собрала знаменитых историков вместе.
Идея была в том, чтобы встретились представители 2-х взглядов на развитие гоплитов: «ортодоксы» и «ревизионисты» и постарались найти общие точки. Получилось это у них не очень хорошо, потому что в итоге каждый остался при своем мнении. Наверное, это и есть главная проблема текущей книги. Ей не хватает системности.
Читать статьи при этом интересно, но нужно быть погруженным в тему. Желательно заранее знать про взгляды основных авторов и их ключевые работы. И вот тогда все идет очень даже хорошо. Серьезная академическая работа, показывающая в том числе как «работает» историческая наука, как развиваются взгляды на тот или иной вопрос с течением времени.
Ну а лучший вывод в книге сделал один из самых знаменитых ревизионистов Петер Кренц, отметив, что по гоплитам архаической и классической эпохи у нас, к сожалению, просто недостаточно данных, чтобы вообще когда-либо разрешить спор между двумя «школами».
Идея была в том, чтобы встретились представители 2-х взглядов на развитие гоплитов: «ортодоксы» и «ревизионисты» и постарались найти общие точки. Получилось это у них не очень хорошо, потому что в итоге каждый остался при своем мнении. Наверное, это и есть главная проблема текущей книги. Ей не хватает системности.
Читать статьи при этом интересно, но нужно быть погруженным в тему. Желательно заранее знать про взгляды основных авторов и их ключевые работы. И вот тогда все идет очень даже хорошо. Серьезная академическая работа, показывающая в том числе как «работает» историческая наука, как развиваются взгляды на тот или иной вопрос с течением времени.
Ну а лучший вывод в книге сделал один из самых знаменитых ревизионистов Петер Кренц, отметив, что по гоплитам архаической и классической эпохи у нас, к сожалению, просто недостаточно данных, чтобы вообще когда-либо разрешить спор между двумя «школами».
May 24, 2024
Having a sort of "classical antique warfare spring" I picked this one up just for the few parts and then ended up reading the whole thing.
The book is based on a conference which was intended to bring synthesis to the discussion how the hoplites fought and why they fought like they did. Yet the conference wasn't really a success as the opinions were apparently so entrenched that no common ground was eventually found. This book contains essays on the topic.
As a layman it was surprising how much has been discussed and wrote about the topic and also how many things are involved in the research but also in the theory of hoplites. Not only is it about how they fought but we know very little about their equipment. Also there's the debate why the hoplites were even born, were they somehow linked to the social changes in Greece or did they just evolve from some sort of fighting methods.
After the book I still don't know how they fought. But I learned a lot of how history has been and can be studied. The book contained mathematical calculus on how much water could a shield displace to support a man as to speculate what was the curvature and the weight of the shield and it's carrier. Then it has analysis of modern riot police behaviour with shields. Mentions of re-enacters in youtube showing how to use the spear and shield. Then it suddenly jumps into archealogy where they count pieces of potter in areas to speculate how much people lived in certain times. Not to mention all the poetry analysis of Homer and few pieces of pottery art showing hoplites. All this is somehow intertwined into "how the hoplite fought" debate.
I would say this is a interesting book for 1st/2nd year history students as an introduction of all sort of methods and for those who are very interested in the hoplite warfare.
The book is based on a conference which was intended to bring synthesis to the discussion how the hoplites fought and why they fought like they did. Yet the conference wasn't really a success as the opinions were apparently so entrenched that no common ground was eventually found. This book contains essays on the topic.
As a layman it was surprising how much has been discussed and wrote about the topic and also how many things are involved in the research but also in the theory of hoplites. Not only is it about how they fought but we know very little about their equipment. Also there's the debate why the hoplites were even born, were they somehow linked to the social changes in Greece or did they just evolve from some sort of fighting methods.
After the book I still don't know how they fought. But I learned a lot of how history has been and can be studied. The book contained mathematical calculus on how much water could a shield displace to support a man as to speculate what was the curvature and the weight of the shield and it's carrier. Then it has analysis of modern riot police behaviour with shields. Mentions of re-enacters in youtube showing how to use the spear and shield. Then it suddenly jumps into archealogy where they count pieces of potter in areas to speculate how much people lived in certain times. Not to mention all the poetry analysis of Homer and few pieces of pottery art showing hoplites. All this is somehow intertwined into "how the hoplite fought" debate.
I would say this is a interesting book for 1st/2nd year history students as an introduction of all sort of methods and for those who are very interested in the hoplite warfare.
February 20, 2019
Donald Kagan is a professor at Yale and a highly renown scholar with specialization in the Ancient Greece. Apart from the recognition he’s received throughout the academia he may also be familiar to a more popular reader, mostly thanks to his highly accessible publications on the Peloponnesian War.
The book (co-edited with another Ancient History PhD Gregory Viggiano) is a collection of lectures on hoplite warfare, notably academic in their depth but still quite approachable in form, given during a conference hosted in Yale in 2008. But what had spurred on a significant group of scholars to meet and argue for hours on end about things such as how big was the gap between two soldiers in the advancing formation?
The main reason had been a 1983 PhD thesis by Victor Davis Hanson, now a respected historian, who had redefined and provided new arguments in favour of a theory named “hoplite orthodoxy”. Since its establishment in 1846 by George Grote, its proponents have seen Greek development of poleis and quasi-democratic institutions not as a protracted process but rather a radical change fuelled by revolution in the military equipment and mode of warfare.
“This ‘orthodoxy’ explains the rise of the early polis in terms of a dramatic change or ‘revolution’ in arms, armor, and tactics; the military revolution became a driving force behind the emergence of the characteristic political and social structures of the Greek state. A central part of the thesis is that the change in fighting style was directly related to recent innovations in arms and armor. Second, the phalanx depended on the weight and the cohesion of heavily armed men who employed ‘shock’ tactics in brief but decisive battles. Third, it has been critical to identify the greatest number of hoplites with a middling group within the polis, which had the wealth to provide its own arms. Fourth, this middling group transformed Greek values.”
In the other corner of this debate have been the “revisionists” who opt for a much more gradual development, spanning multiple centuries.
“Can archaeological evidence be mobilized to address the historical issues of whether the hoplite phalanx was coterminous with ‘middling’ (Hanson 1999: 69) or prosperous (van Wees 2005: 55–56) property holders and whether this phenomenon began in the eighth or sixth century BCE?”
Hanson had rekindled the debate by propounding the theory that tied development of arms (bronze panoply, heavy shield etc.) to the emergence of the order of middling farmers. He explained that both mode of warfare and further changes in the political institutions should be ascribed to this new socio-economic group which projected its lifestyle and beliefs onto the existing aristocratic and oligarchic rule. His arguments have at the same time propped up the position of the “orthodox” and brought freshness to a somewhat stale debate.
“Like earlier scholars, Hanson argues that the fundamental differences between massed infantry combat and the style of fighting that existed prior to it are in part linked with the rise of the polis. But Hanson goes further. The Greek city-states formed ‘the first consensual governments in the history of civilization that fielded soldiers who were independent and free property owners—militiamen, family farmers, and voters all in one.’ These facts help explain why the Greeks wanted to limit warfare to single, brief, shock encounters, as well as why they developed an ethos that such face-to-face killing at close range in ‘pure’ hoplite battles was more ‘fair’ and ‘noble’ than other forms of combat.”
Today Hanson’s views are largely contested and the “revisionist” ideas have long since gained the predominance. We shouldn’t however see this academic “battle” in black and white. Hanson’s arguments have indeed enlivened the debate. Moreover, he has made significant contributions to how we understand the birth of Classical Greece and he has forced other scholars to rethink and improve on their ideas.
I wouldn’t recommend this book to those new to the Ancient Greece history. For those better acquainted with the subject, however, it would be a valuable occasion to learn about multitude of undertones accompanying the general narrative. Finally, watching civilised people argue has always been instructive.
--
My opinion on individual chapters:
- 1 – Introduction. Obligatory.
- 2 – Quasi-Introduction. Optional.
- 3 – How individual battles were fought. Optional.
- 4 – Good for understanding the timeframe of the disputed events. Optional.
- 5 – Juxtaposes hoplites with other Mediterranean modes of warfare. Optional.
- 6 – On the origin of poleis. Informative.
- 7 – Lightweight revisionist account. Optional.
- 8 – Practical aspects. How heavy the armour was vs how bug the guys were. Informative.
- 9 – Hoplites as mercenaries. Pairs well with 5 but better. Informative.
- 10 – Very academic. Heavy on archaeology and statistics. Negligible.
- 11 – Revisionists’ stand. Obligatory.
- 12 – Hanson’s stand. Obligatory.
--
Hanson’s convincingly elaborates on his theory in “The Other Greeks”.
For the other side of the argument check the books and publications by Hans van Wees.
For a more interactive discussion on hoplite warfare, check Kagan’s lectures on the Ancient Greece from Yale, available on iTunesU and other platforms, in which he actually aligns his students in a hoplite formation.
The book (co-edited with another Ancient History PhD Gregory Viggiano) is a collection of lectures on hoplite warfare, notably academic in their depth but still quite approachable in form, given during a conference hosted in Yale in 2008. But what had spurred on a significant group of scholars to meet and argue for hours on end about things such as how big was the gap between two soldiers in the advancing formation?
The main reason had been a 1983 PhD thesis by Victor Davis Hanson, now a respected historian, who had redefined and provided new arguments in favour of a theory named “hoplite orthodoxy”. Since its establishment in 1846 by George Grote, its proponents have seen Greek development of poleis and quasi-democratic institutions not as a protracted process but rather a radical change fuelled by revolution in the military equipment and mode of warfare.
“This ‘orthodoxy’ explains the rise of the early polis in terms of a dramatic change or ‘revolution’ in arms, armor, and tactics; the military revolution became a driving force behind the emergence of the characteristic political and social structures of the Greek state. A central part of the thesis is that the change in fighting style was directly related to recent innovations in arms and armor. Second, the phalanx depended on the weight and the cohesion of heavily armed men who employed ‘shock’ tactics in brief but decisive battles. Third, it has been critical to identify the greatest number of hoplites with a middling group within the polis, which had the wealth to provide its own arms. Fourth, this middling group transformed Greek values.”
In the other corner of this debate have been the “revisionists” who opt for a much more gradual development, spanning multiple centuries.
“Can archaeological evidence be mobilized to address the historical issues of whether the hoplite phalanx was coterminous with ‘middling’ (Hanson 1999: 69) or prosperous (van Wees 2005: 55–56) property holders and whether this phenomenon began in the eighth or sixth century BCE?”
Hanson had rekindled the debate by propounding the theory that tied development of arms (bronze panoply, heavy shield etc.) to the emergence of the order of middling farmers. He explained that both mode of warfare and further changes in the political institutions should be ascribed to this new socio-economic group which projected its lifestyle and beliefs onto the existing aristocratic and oligarchic rule. His arguments have at the same time propped up the position of the “orthodox” and brought freshness to a somewhat stale debate.
“Like earlier scholars, Hanson argues that the fundamental differences between massed infantry combat and the style of fighting that existed prior to it are in part linked with the rise of the polis. But Hanson goes further. The Greek city-states formed ‘the first consensual governments in the history of civilization that fielded soldiers who were independent and free property owners—militiamen, family farmers, and voters all in one.’ These facts help explain why the Greeks wanted to limit warfare to single, brief, shock encounters, as well as why they developed an ethos that such face-to-face killing at close range in ‘pure’ hoplite battles was more ‘fair’ and ‘noble’ than other forms of combat.”
Today Hanson’s views are largely contested and the “revisionist” ideas have long since gained the predominance. We shouldn’t however see this academic “battle” in black and white. Hanson’s arguments have indeed enlivened the debate. Moreover, he has made significant contributions to how we understand the birth of Classical Greece and he has forced other scholars to rethink and improve on their ideas.
I wouldn’t recommend this book to those new to the Ancient Greece history. For those better acquainted with the subject, however, it would be a valuable occasion to learn about multitude of undertones accompanying the general narrative. Finally, watching civilised people argue has always been instructive.
--
My opinion on individual chapters:
- 1 – Introduction. Obligatory.
- 2 – Quasi-Introduction. Optional.
- 3 – How individual battles were fought. Optional.
- 4 – Good for understanding the timeframe of the disputed events. Optional.
- 5 – Juxtaposes hoplites with other Mediterranean modes of warfare. Optional.
- 6 – On the origin of poleis. Informative.
- 7 – Lightweight revisionist account. Optional.
- 8 – Practical aspects. How heavy the armour was vs how bug the guys were. Informative.
- 9 – Hoplites as mercenaries. Pairs well with 5 but better. Informative.
- 10 – Very academic. Heavy on archaeology and statistics. Negligible.
- 11 – Revisionists’ stand. Obligatory.
- 12 – Hanson’s stand. Obligatory.
--
Hanson’s convincingly elaborates on his theory in “The Other Greeks”.
For the other side of the argument check the books and publications by Hans van Wees.
For a more interactive discussion on hoplite warfare, check Kagan’s lectures on the Ancient Greece from Yale, available on iTunesU and other platforms, in which he actually aligns his students in a hoplite formation.
September 24, 2020
Borrow.
Thorough, critical and written in a relatable way. The chapters, however, are quite repititive. I would recommend flipping to those sections you are most interested in to get the most from this.
Thorough, critical and written in a relatable way. The chapters, however, are quite repititive. I would recommend flipping to those sections you are most interested in to get the most from this.
April 15, 2016
This is the book for anyone trying to understand exactly what went on in early hoplite battles. The papers came out of a 2008 Yale conference on Victor Davis Hanson's theory of hoplite warfare and concomitant changes in Greek society.
I think the whole theory might be in a shambles-- some of these papers really made me doubt the old story that hoplites were independent farmers who then gained political rights and gave birth to the polis. But I'm still undecided. I definitely found Hans Van Wees and Peter Krentz's arguments for a more fluid battle convincing-- Victor Davis Hanson's bizarre picture of a giant shoving match is just plain wrong. If, like me, you're interested mainly in what happened in hoplite battles, chapters 2 and 7 are the ones to read.
I think the whole theory might be in a shambles-- some of these papers really made me doubt the old story that hoplites were independent farmers who then gained political rights and gave birth to the polis. But I'm still undecided. I definitely found Hans Van Wees and Peter Krentz's arguments for a more fluid battle convincing-- Victor Davis Hanson's bizarre picture of a giant shoving match is just plain wrong. If, like me, you're interested mainly in what happened in hoplite battles, chapters 2 and 7 are the ones to read.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews