Since this is obviously outside of my area of expertise could you sum up what you regard as the most important of your findings regarding classical Greek warfare?

One thing I have learned from your posts is that most everything I knew about Greek warfare was wrong, so I want to toss a couple other things here to see how accurate they are:

• What was the function of skirmishers and irregular forces in classical Greek armies? I feel there is sort of a story that during the Peloponnesian Wars the lumbering, inflexible hoplites were often taken down by nimble peltasts, and that the period afterwards with Xenopohon and the like saw a "rethinking" and expansion of their role. How much of that is historically justifiable?

• Related, what was the presence of non-Greek (or even non-citizen) forces in classical armies? I have heard about Scythian archers and Thessalian cavalry and the like, but was there anything like an "auxiliary" system?

• Related again, how do you see the image of Philip as "the great reformer" who put the primarily intellectual theorizing of men like Isocrates and Iphikrates into action?

• Do you have any thoughts on the Skirotae and Perioeci of Sparta? I have always thought of them as a way to show there is more to Sparta we don't know than we know, but I wonder if there is more concrete research on them.

What did the guys at the back of the phalanx do? Yell encouraging things to their buddies up front?

Also, what were naval battle tactics like? I know that the idea was to poke holes in the other guy's boat using your boat, but what strategies did they use to facilitate the hole poking?

Edit: What was your favorite part of the book to research/write about? What do you think is the neatest/most interesting thing you learned while researching?

Also, I read the book's description. Can you elaborate on "rejecting the traditional image of limited, ritualized battle"?

Is there anything that grinds your gears when you see depictions of greek culture and/or warfare in entertainment media?

I'm a high school student planning on studying history in the Netherlands. As your name sound Dutch, do you have any recommendations?

Alright, I have some questions (I hope it's not too many).

1. Did the Greeks have some sort of wavering high-pitched battle cry similar to ululation or "Alalalala" or something like that? This was mentioned in the historical fiction book Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield and the closest I've been able to find is this. What are the sources for this used in warfare?

Also I know that the Greeks had "war songs" that they chanted while marching into battle. Do we have any idea what those were like exactly? Are any recorded?

2. How completely did the Macedonian sarissa phalanx system replace regular hoplites in the Hellenistic period? I'm under the impression there was a core of regular Greek infantry equipped as hoplites that joined Alexander's campaigns, but how long did that continue in the Greek world?

3. Kind of related to the last question, how exactly was the Macedonian sarissa phalanx developed? Was it really a unique innovation of Philip II or did it have any precedents?

4. How did hoplite combat on ships work in comparison to land? Did they wear the same amount of armor? I've read there were only about a dozen hoplites on a typical trireme, so they must have fought in a much more individualistic way than normally. Are there any sources on how that worked? I know Greek naval warfare focused heavily on ramming, but did they ever board enemy ships and if so how?

5. How were prisoners of war treated during the Peloponnesian War and in general? I know they were all sold into slavery after the failed Sicilian Expedition, but other times they were ransomed like after Sphacteria. How often were they just massacred? Was there anything like "rules of war" regarding this?

6. Will this book go down in price? I've always wanted to read a good book on Greek warfare and I really liked your podcast and especially the "pulse theory" of how combat worked which makes much more sense to me than anything else I've read, but this is way too expensive for me unfortunately.

Hello, I'm a big fan of your posts, and sometimes when I'm bored, I look at comments on your and r/XenophonTheAthenian's profile to learn new tidbits. I have a few questions that I've been meaning to ask you:

First: is there any evidence that any Polis in Classical or Archaic Greece ever required their hoplites to own cuirasses, or even any body-armour besides for the Aspis, in order to be considered on any census-register to be hoplites (if such ever existed) or to be deploy as ones? Like, the Military Decree of Amphipolis inscription appears to require some body-armour for standard non-officer infantrymen, was there ever any polis that had rules that Hoplites must own and bring with them metalic helmets and greaves with them, and own a sword; or could any citizen or metic that managed to acquire an Aspis and Dory be allowed to get drafted into the phalanx?

Second: do we know how protective the Aspis was? I read in Xenophon's Anabasis that some tribe in some mountain near Armenia were apparently armed with large bows with immense draw-weight and arrow shaft size was able to penetrate the Ten-Thousand's 'shields and cuirasses'. Was this exceptional? Do we have any literary accounts of the Aspis being quite resilient to missile fire and melee strikes?

Third: How exceptional were the Greeks and Romans with having large number of relatively well-armoured infantrymen in their normal armies? It seems like the older Classicalist scholarship you read in the footnotes of translations of various Histories and in the introduction books of the era make Eastern infantrymen out to be completely unarmoured and cowardly and no match to the average Hoplite or Roman infantryman in terms of gear and armour, but accounts like Herodotus seem to imply that a lot regions in the Near-East appear to have infantrymen (at-least ones recruited by Xerxes) quite-well armoured for the time. IIRC, Herodotus mentions that the Persian and Median infantry contingents in Xerxe's expeditionary force had 'cuirasses made out of iron-scales'; the Assyrians had 'Egyptian-like shields', bronze helmets, and linen cuirasses; and the Egyptians had large hallow shields with woven helmets and most of them were armed with cuirasses. Is the account of Herodotus accurate, and would those contingents really be at a disadvantage against the Greek hoplites they faced at the time?

As a professional classicist and academic, what's your opinion of VD Hanson? He's made a career out of writing about Greek battle tactics/military history.

Could you discuss the Athenian ephebia? On its face, it looks a bit like the systems of universal service (complete with state-issued arms) seen through the 19th and 20th centuries, and would build up a pool of trained manpower. Did the institution actually affect Athens at war in any noticeable way?

The specific theme of the book (and the PhD thesis it's based on) is the character of Classical Greek approaches to battle, and the moral and practical factors that may make those approaches seem primitive and peculiar to modern eyes.

1. Despite this modern perception, would you say that today there are lessons that can be learned from Classical Greek warfare?

Edit: 2) What would you say is the greatest misconception about Classical Greek warfare?

Have you received any backlash yet? Your findings don't seem to conform to the ideal of a disciplined and ritualized Greek hoplite warfare.

1. How clear a picture do you think we have of Classical Greek warfare? (Maybe a better way to phrase would be "how close do you feel to your subject"?) What gaps, inconsistencies, or questions do you hope that future research will illuminate or explain?

2. What would women do while their men were away fighting?

3. What film or novel (if any) depicting Ancient or Classical Greek fighting made you think, "huh, that's sort of accurate"? Are you able to enjoy such stories in general, or do you groan the moment you see an aspis?

Thank you for all your contributions to this sub!

I am studying Medieval and Early-Modern history at university right now, and my focus is on the military tactics, organisation and culture of Europe in the 13th-16th centuries. One thing commonly encountered in this field are models of warfare that have been established in the 19th/early 20th century, firmly established in historiography and only now really starting to be thoroughly challenged. These models are often somewhat bizarre and make caricatures of the people they are attempting to understand. It seems a characterisation of culturally stiff, ritualistic wagers-of-war who are somewhat out of touch with reality is easily established, more so than one of a prudent and perfectly sensible cultural approach to warfare.

Do you think this is the same phenomena that occurred in your field? Why does this sort of thing happen, and why do they take so long dispel?

Since much of what you have described in your response to Commie's question is a description of "the socio-economic and practical military context in which they fought," did you see any parallels to current concerns? Were there any "aha!" moments in which you realized that something could be written almost exactly the same now as you were writing it about then?

Could you compare and contrast your approach to "The Western Way of War", by Hanson?

Edit: I didn't see the earlier question about VDH, which you responded to. I read through the links, and I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from now. For what it's worth, I approve. I was not very impressed with WWW -- while the brutal details of Hoplite warfare that he illuminated were grimly fascinating, I was not at all inclined to follow his overarching thesis about the origin and superiority of western warfighting. But what do I know, I am just a civilian :)

What are your thoughts on what othismos actually meant? A literal shoving of ranks, or more of a metaphor analogous to our modern military language of "thrust" of "big push"?

Yoke and tube armour: linen or leather, quilted or glued?

Dr Konijnendijk, can you speak a little bit about how you utilize the classical literary sources, and which texts are most valuable in developing your thesis?

How seriously do you take Thucydides as an expert on military tactics and practices?

Was there something like a "high risk, high reward" type tactic/maneuver in ancient Greek land/naval battles?

Was Greek warfare more about achieving a decisive victory in battle as soon as possible or was it more about weakening the enemy and devastating enemy land until he can't continue the war?

Is your book going to be on Amazon?

Congrats on the book! If it's anything like your AH posts I have no doubt it's worth the price.

Aside from the Macedonian Sarissa, did two-handed weapons ever play a role in Ancient Greek warfare or that of their neighbors (ie. two-handed axes or was the Dory ever used with two hands)?

What would you say makes a Hoplite different from any other ancient warrior carrying a spear, shield, and maybe a sword/knife? Were there any notable trends in the evolution of hoplite equipment and tactics during their history?

How did the Spartans differ from the rest of the Greeks in war? Were they really so much better at fighting or is that a romantic Hollywood myth? Also I've heard they fought more or less in the nude. Was that the case?

When was Greek fire developed? How common was its use?

What's your take on the Persian wars? There's a romantic story of the hordes of Asia being stopped by a small, determined band of Greeks. Did the Persians really have a significant numerical advantage?

Are you acquainted with Karwansaray's Ancient Warfare magazine? If so, how accurate do you consider it to generally be?

Was there fairly complex math involved for figuring the ideal phalanx deployments in the same way or with the same type of equations as the pike formations of early modern Europe?

Can you elaborate on the subtitle of your book being a 'cultural history'? Would you say that you use cultural history methodology to explore how Greek warfare has been enshrined in non-Greek societies throughout time (e.g. in the US military, the musing of Victorians, etc) or are you concerned with the way Greek audiences of classic times would have viewed military campaigns in their society (e.g. poems, artwork, etc).

Sounds like a great book. I'll certainly be buying a copy when the price comes down a bit (in the meantime I'll request my Uni to purchase a copy). Thanks for doing this AMA

When thinking about Greek warfare, one of "the" things coming to my mind are Cretan archers, which were apparently of really high quality.

What sort of environment did Crete provide, that resulted in such a development?

It seems like archery wasn't that common back then, so how come that an island in the Mediterranean was the exception?

Did they do anything unefficicent or different from common thinking of greek strategies?

Do you like victorian art?

Rejecting the traditional image of limited, ritualised battle, Konijnendijk sketches a world of brutally destructive engagements, restricted only by the stubborn amateurism of the men who fought.

Your synopsis suggests that you believe that the early Greek's focus on infantry (and neglect of combined arms) was not solely due to cultural reasons. So what would you say is the main reason for their insistence of using infantry over calvary/archery?

Also, we found that during the Greco-Persian wars, the Greeks managed to beat off a well rounded Persian army despite hardly having any archers or calvary. Was infantry really superior to combined arms back then? Or were the Persians weak or were the Greeks lucky?

I remember reading that there is some debate about how Hoplites actually fought. In that some believe in the traditional idea of tight formations, while others believe that they fought in much looser formations. Where do you stand on this debate?

How many pages is your book? I’m seriously considering buying it.

You've mentioned that the bulk of the Greek armies at this time were not "soldiers" as such, rather a citizen militia. This leads me to two questions then.

If the bulk of Greek forces were made of citizens of the state in question, then where did the mercenaries come from? Were they hired out from other citizen bodies, other cultures entirely, non-citizen free men?

The other question relates to the creation of a "military" class. Was the lack of a military elite in Greece a unique phenomenon of the ancient world?

I apologize if this is out of your area of expertise, but what allowed Alexander's army to win against such greater numbers in his campaigns against the Persians? Or is the idea that his numbers were so much smaller in itself inaccurate?

How important was the role of cavalry in Alexander's army? I understand they were excellent horseman. When Alexander flanked Darius at Gaugamela, why wasn't Darius able to stop Alexander's cavalry with archers and/or spearman? It seems like it would be difficult to deploy cavalry effectively considering they're such a large and vulnerable target.

What are your views on how seriously pre-battle sacrifices were taken and to what extent did they affect tactics? The only work that I can think of that addresses the relationship between sphagia and tactics is Parker (2009) in War and Violence in Ancient Greece and this paints the sacrifice as mere window dressing to be ignored when it suits the generals. This conclusion seems at odds with trends in the history of ancient religion where genuine belief and conviction are been taken more seriously (even 'faith' is now been thrown around to the chagrin of more old school academics). But are battles (where the stakes are maybe higher than other spheres of life) immune from serious religious belief in favour of more pragmatic military tactics?

Edit: Reading through your other answers I notice that you studied at Leiden, which is where one of my academic heroes is an Emeritus Professor. So on that note did you ever get to see Henk Versnel playing his banjo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w6jTR3FGnc?

Are there individual published papers that make up some of your chapters, for those who have journal access but not book access?

1. I read somewhere in this thread, that Spartans, contrary to popular belief, weren’t that much better trained and disciplined than the Greeks of other city states. How true was this? Where did this myth originate from? (Aside from The Movie 300)

2. What was the Greek strategy to deal with horse archers or pike phalanxes?

Thanks!

What did you think of the battle depictions in Gates of Fire?

How were orders given and distributed during battle?

If drums and horns were used, do we know how exactly they were used?

Thanks again for your earlier answer on Athenian democracy!

What is the modern understanding of the Battle of Marathon? In high school, I was taught that it was an invasion or raid attempt by the Persians that was turned back due to Hoplite superiority and Greek brilliance. Does this still hold up in modern critical analysis of classical Greece?

Congrats on the book!

What would have happened to those on the sides of a phalanx when they were being flanked?

When we talk about medieval warfare, we emphasize the prevalence and importance of raids, skirmishes, and sieges as opposed to pitched battle. I'm curious as to how important this "small war" was to the classical Greeks, if at all.

Why wasn't Persia able to consolidate their victory after winning at Thermopoly and overrunning Greece? How were they beat back? Did they try to invade again after Xerxes?

Hey, I have been a fan of your posts.

One question I see contended a lot regarding the phalanx was wether or not the spear was held under or overhand.

Is the reality of the matter less black and white or do we have evidence to base a standard of use on?

Well, congratulations for the book, I could not have it by some piracy... speaking of which! Does the book speak of piracy and how the raid tactics were carried about? Are there references to the raids of the Iliad, the tactics of raiding that Odysseios, Nestor and others speak about? Is this message down because I suggested lightly about piracy and we must protect the intellectual culture? How strong exactly had to be a phalanx, at least at minimum, to not be speared through? Four rows, maybe more? Did the lines change with much frequency due to how exhausting combat was? Was the battle in the phalanx so tight that indeed, even without the discipline witnessed in later times, people could only fight in a up-down or down-up directing of weapons, since there was no space? How much did the leisure class (a term I got thanks to you) train and hone their skills to have... kills? You can't spell Skill without Kill, it would seem. And just... too many more questions I forget to do, but those will do just nice to not overwhelm you with my curiosity like a winning phalanx overwhelms the loser phalanx. Also, speaking of which, why there were not any basic drilling on keeping together or on a retreat? Shouldn't that been taught by the leisure class to the hoi polloi in order to avoid a definite defeat? (since if you retreat and not lose men by the hundreds as it happens with a flight or a routing, you can come back and the enemy will always be wary if they know what is good for them)

First of all, this sounds like an amazing book and if it comes down in price (or I have enough money ever), I'd love to get it.

Secondly, my question. Was there any or much variation in Greek fighting styles between the states in the Greek peninsula itself and the colonies further afield (e.g. Those in France and Spain)? For example, do we have any evidence of the Massalians mixing Gallic warfare styles with Greek hoplite (or later saris sarissa) warfare?

Thanks for modding and the AMA!

1. Why is your book a bit pricey?

2. How did you arrive at this thesis topic and particular thesis?

3. Could you elaborate on the phrase "seem primitive and peculiar to modern eyes?" Knowing little about the topic, Classical Greek tactics seem like a less refined version of Roman tactics. (Pardon generalization.) That's primitive in the sense that it's really, really old infantry fighting but not peculiar.

4. What sources on Ancient Greek warfare did you use and how did you use them? (How many languages do you read?)

5. Supposing your thesis becomes the new standard Ancient Greek warfare historiography, what research would build on top of it? (What research are you currently doing or do you want to do?)

6. Does you research give any insight into the historiography of similar topics?

How much and in what ways did Greek warfare change after the Greco-Persian Wars?

Regarding the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus claims fewer than 200 Greeks died compared to over 6,000 Persians, this despite Persia's fearsome archers. First, does modern scholarship support these figures? If so, to what would you attribute this overwhelming victory against a much larger army?

I played rome total war and it centers on the naked hoplites armed with a round shield, phalanx and short sword.

is it true that the greek also used swords similar to the gladius? why is it that short swords are more popular in the city states?

while barbarians prevered longer swords. is it because short swords were easier to maneuver in a tight formation?

You've mentioned foreign mercenaries being used increasingly: what did they do when there wasn't war? Did they go back to their homelands? Did they move on to a new conflict? Did they make some form of camp and stick around for the next one that was brewing? Or do we simply not know?

What are the similarities of the Greeks and Phoenicians and other peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean? where I can read more about it?

Do you have any insight into environmental influence on force composition and use? For instance were armies formed out of different types of topography composed differently? Did areas specializing in different types of economic activity create different types of forces, or simply different size forces? Were areas suffering drought or famine more likely to take on an offensive or defensive posture? Was that a consequence of their neighbors relative prosperity?

I am a hoplite in the army of one of the Greek city-states, on my way to my first battle.

What does the trip to the battlefield look like, how long can I expect to be away from home, what does battle from my perspective look like and what are my chances?