47. Pritchett, SAGT 7, pp. 186–7Google Scholar, and implicitly by Hanson, , Hopliles, pp. 66–8Google Scholar. Cf. Latacz, , KKK, esp. pp. 49–65Google Scholar. The traditional inclination to excise ‘hoplite’ panoplies from the Iliad as late interpolations is well represented by Lorimer (see n. 65 below).

48. Paris carries a sword and a pair of spears as well as his bow (3.17–19); cf. Helenos (13.576–95) and Meriones, who uses the bow at e.g. 13.650–2, but otherwise employs the spear. Teukros: 8.266–72. Axes: 13.611–13; 15.711. Slings, too, are used (13.598–600, 716–18), as are a mace (7.141) and a dagger (3.271–2; 19.252–3).

49. For the fantasy element in the Iliad, see SW, pp. 6–10. Shields: 8.192–3; 18.481; 20.268–72; golden plumes: 18.611–12; 19.382–3; 22.315–16; Alkinoös' palace: Od. 7.88–90.

50. Homeric shields and spears are discussed in greater detail, and with bibliography, in SW, pp. 17–21. The present discussion summarizes, but adds a number of new points.

51. Eukuklos: 5.453 – 12.426 – 13.715; 14.428 (general); 5.797. Kukloi: 11.32–7; 12.294–7; 20.280–1. Pantos' eisê (17x): e.g. 3.347, 356; 5.300; and 7.250; 11.61; 13.803 (Hektor). The fact that shields are ‘bossed’ (n. 53 below) also fits most easily with a round shape. I cannot see why Borchhardt, H., ‘Frϋhe griechische Schildformen’, Archaeologia Homerica El (Göttingen, 1977), pp. 3–4Google Scholar, nevertheless concludes that the epithets do not give a clear indication of the shape of the shields.

52. Combination of leather and bronze: see also 12.405–7; 13.804 (Hektor); 17.492–3; 20.275–6. Shields are at times referred to as ‘hides’ (4.447 – 8.61; 12.105,137), but also as ‘bronze’ (3.348; 11.65–6; 14.9–11; 17.268): this, too, suggests a combination of both. Aias' shield has seven layers of hide (7.220 ff.; 11.545) plus one of bronze. It is because of its exceptional thickness that it is called ‘like a tower’ (e.g. 11.485): a ‘tower’ to Homer is primarily an impenetrable, rather than, as is generally assumed, a tall structure (SW, p. 320 n. 32; cf. n.56 below).

53. Central boss: 6.267; 13.192; omphaloessa (11x): 4.448 – 8.162; 12.161; 13.264; 16.124; 19.360 (general); 6.118; 22.111 (Hektor); also 11.259,424, 457. Agamemnon: 11.32–7.

54. Rim: 6.117–18; 14.412; 15.645; 18.479–80; 20.275–6. Telamôn: 5.795–8 (right shoulder); 14.404–5 (implicitly over left shoulder); 11.38–9; 12.401–2; 16.802–3; 18.480. The presence of a houlder strap is also implied by the fact that shields are taken up before helmets are put on (e.g. 3.333ff; Lorimer HM, p. 188), and that shields are ‘slung across the back’ in flight (8.94; 11.545). Since a passage in Herodotos (1.171) and vase-paintings suggest that double-grip shields never had a telamón, we may infer that the Homeric shield had only one handle. The further argument that the heroes manipulate their shields in ways which would have been impossible with double-grip shields (Lorimer, HM, pp. 186–7Google Scholar; Borchhardt, , op. cit. [n. 51], pp. 48–9)Google Scholar does not seem valid to me. The range of movement would not have differed much: even a single-grip shield could not have been held very far from the body, given that it was suspended by a necessarily rather short and non-elastic strap.

55. Kanones (8.192–3; 12.405–7) are thus explained by Lorimer, HM, pp. 192–4Google Scholar, following the scholia.

56. The epithets ‘broad’ (euru, 11.527; 17.132) and ‘large’ (megalos, 23.820) suggest this. The formula ‘like a tower’ does not imply large size (see n. 52 above), nor does the epithet ‘man-covering’ (atnphibrolos, 2.389; 11.32; 12.402; 20.281) necessarily mean a shield protecting a warrior from head to toe: a shield of any size would ‘cover’ man.

57. For Hektor's shield, see the passage cited in nn. 51 (round), 52 (bronze-faced) and 53 (bossed). See SW, pp. 18–19, 320 n. 33, for discussion and bibliography.

58. Such as the ornate and precious shields of Nestor and Akhilleus (n. 49 above) and the shield of Agamemnon (n. 53 above). Lorimer, in fact, believes that Hektor's shield is ‘not a [Mycenaean] survival, but… a touch to enhance Hector's martial excellence’ (HM, p. 184); in other words, she, too, thinks that the poet(s) invented an unrealistically large shield for him; she does not, however, extend this explanation to the shields of Aias and Periphetes. I repeat that to my mind it is methodologically desirable to reconstruct, wherever possible, consistent images – and that includes consistent fantasies.

59. Akhilleus' spear (16.140–2; 19.387–9) is thrown e.g. at Asteropaios (21.160–77). Other men armed with single spears appear at 3.238, 346, 349, 355; 7.213; 10.335, 458–9; 13.296; 15.482; 20.163; cf. Athena at 5.745–6 – 8.389–90. Pairs of spears: 5.495; 6.104; 11.212; 12.464–5 (Hektor); 3.19–20; 10.76; 11.43–4; 12.298; 13.241; 14.139; 21.163; also Od. 22.99,125. There is no categorical distinction between types of spear: the words doru and enkhos are applied to both spears thrown and spears thrust; the rarer term akon, though, is used only of spears thrown. The ‘butt-spike’ (saurôtêr) mentioned once (10.152–4; cf. the ‘butt-end’ [ouriakhos], 13.443) would be most useful in hand-to-hand combat (so Hanson, , Hopliles, pp. 71–4), but would not preclude the use of the spear as a missile; on the contrary, it would serve as a counterweight to the spearhead, helping to lengthen the spear's trajectoryGoogle Scholar.

60. See e.g. Finley, , op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 45, 149Google Scholar; Morris, I., ClAnl 5 (1986), 89Google Scholar; also Nilsson, M. P., Homer and Mycenae (London, 1933), pp. 139–41Google Scholar. Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 173–4Google Scholar, provides statistics on bronze and iron weapons in Homer and the Dark Age, which show that no more than 15% of weapons used in the Dark Age were made of bronze.

61. Snodgrass, AAG, pp. 96–7Google Scholar.

62. Arguroêlon: 2.45; 3.334, 361; 7.303; 13.610; 14.404; 16.135; 19.372; 23.807; also, Od. 8.406, 416; 10.261; 11.97. On the use of bronze and iron, as well as silver-tipped, rivets from Mycenaean to Archaic times: Snodgrass, EGA W, pp. 109Google Scholar. Compare the use of precious metals in other pieces of equipment (e.g. Herakles', wonderfully decorated golden baldric [Od. 11.609–14]Google Scholar, the golden ring around Hektor's spear [6.320 = 8.495], and the silver ankle-guard attached to the heroes' greaves [see n. 71 below]). Compare also the silver rivets decorating chairs: Od. 7.162; 8.65; 10.314, 366; 22.341.

63. Bow: 4.105–11; cf. Od. 21.1 Iff.; barbed arrows: e.g. 4.151, 214; arrow poison: Od. 1.260–2; cf. Lorimer, HM, pp. 276–305Google Scholar; Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 141–56, 174–5Google Scholar. Large numbers of arrows: 3.79–80; 8.513–15; 11.191 – 206; 15.313–19; 16.361, 772–8; see LM, p. 11 andn. 36. ‘Archer!’ as insult: 11.385 (‘Archer! Shameless creature!’); ineffectiveness of arrows: 5.204–16; 11.386–95 (contra Hijmans, B.J., Festoen (Festschrift A. N. Zadoks Josephus-Jitta [Groningen, 1976], pp. 343–52)Google Scholar.

64. Khalkokhitones (31x Iliad, 2x Odyssey): e.g. 1.371; 4.537; 5.180; 15.330; 17.485; 24.25. One man is said to wear a ‘bronze tunic’ (Khitôn; 13.439–40); that this means a cuirass was already recognized by Studniczka, F., Beiträge zur Geschichte derallgriechischen Tracht (Vienna, 1886), pp. 61–2Google Scholar, who cites as a parallel the metaphor ‘wearing a stone tunic’, meaning ‘to be stoned to death’ (3.56–7). The identification is accepted by Catling, H. W., ‘Panzer’, Archaeologia Homerica El (Göttingen, 1977), pp. 79–80Google Scholar. Individual bronze cuirasses: 13.372, 398, 507; 17.314; 22.322–3; 23.560 (with tin overlay); cf. 8.195; golden cuirasses (11.24–7 [with bands of tin and lapis lazuli]; 18.320,610) are presumably a heroic fantasy. Linen cuirasses are mentioned 2.529–30, 830. I take it that ‘curved tunics’ (streptoi khitones) fastened with straps (5.133 [cf. 5.99–100]; 21.30–1) is yet another poetic phrase, referring to the curves of the bronze cuirass (contra Studniczka, , op. cit. p. 63)Google Scholar.

65. A long list of alleged inconsistencies and proposed deletions was offered by Lorimer, HM, pp. 203–10Google Scholar, who admitted that, were it not for the archaeological evidence, little ‘could be confidently eliminated’ (p. 210). In fact, she felt that no more than three passages could be deleted on internal evidence alone. Courbin, P., BCH 81 (1957), 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 171–2, spell out the implications of subsequent finds of Mycenaean and eighth-century bronze corsletsGoogle Scholar.

66. Gualoi cover the shoulders (5.98–9, 188–9), the chest (13.586–7), and the ‘middle belly’ (13.506–7; 17.313–14). The lowest parts of the body touched by weapons piercing the corslet are, again, the middle belly (as cited) and the navel (20.413–16); when the ‘lower belly’ is hit, the weapon pierces the belt (see below), not the corslet. The details of how the gualoi are joined are not provided by Homer (with the possible exception of the reference to ‘straps’ attached to ‘curved tunics’ [see n. 64 above]), but must be inferred (cf. Courbin, , op. cit. [n. 65], 342–50)Google Scholar.

67. Brandenburg, H., ‘Mitrê, zôstêr und zôrma’, Archaeologia Homerica El (Göttingen, 1977), p. 135Google Scholar, Snodgrass, EGA W, p. 183Google Scholar (cf. AAG, p. 55), and Lorimer, HM, p. 247Google Scholar, hold that bronze belts and bronze corslets are incompatible, though Leaf, W., JHS 4 (1883), 76–7Google Scholar, did envisage the combination. A bronze belt is depicted on the famous Chigi vase of c. 640 B.C. (worn by the first warrior of the first rank of the lefthand army), and, it appears, also on a sixth-century black-figure vase (Boston 98.923; worn by the righthand duellist; reproduced in Vermeule, E., Aspects of Death in Early Greek Artand Poetry (Berkeley, 1979), p. 100 (fig. 16)Google Scholar. Actual bronze belts dating from the late ninth century B.C. onwards have been found: Brock, J. K., Fortetsa (Cambridge, 1957), p. 197Google Scholar; Boardman, J., Anatolia 6 (1961–1962), 179–89Google Scholar; Brandenburg, , op. cit., pp. 131–5Google Scholar. For broad belts on naked bronze figurines, see n. 79 below.

68. There are a few problems with these passages. Why is the corslet ‘twofold’? It has been suggested that this is a reference to the front- and back-plate overlapping at the flanks (e.g. Leaf, , op. cit. [n. 67], 80)Google Scholar, but the contexts show that Menelaos is hit full in front and that in the second passage Polydoros is hit in the small of the back. I would suggest that the corslet is ‘twofold’ at the spot in question simply because the metal buckle of the belt here adds an extra layer of armour.

A related problem is the fact that, while the buckles of Menelaos' belt are in front, as one would expect, the buckles of Polydoros' belt appear to be on his back. We may suppose that belts could be fastened in different ways, or that they had buckles back and front; alternatively, we may perhaps read the Polydoros-passage as a hyperbalon, taking ‘where the golden fasteners of the zôster met’ with what follows (‘ …, the point of the spear went right through past his navel’), rather than with that which precedes it ('He hit him in the middle of the back,…).

A final problem is the fact that in two later passages the arrow that struck Menelaos is said to have penetrated a zôma, not thôrêx (after the zôstêr and before the milrê 4.186–7, 215–16). The scholia suggested that zôma meant the lower part of the thôrêx (accepted by Helbig, W., Das homensche Eposaus den Denkmälern erldäien ² [Leipzig, 1887], p. 293)Google Scholar; others have argued that the zôma is either the woven tunic or a loincloth worn under the corslet, and that the poet does not mention the corslet itself in these passages (Studniczka, , op. cit. [n. 64], pp. 67–70Google Scholar; Leaf, , op. cit. [n. 67], 80–1Google Scholar; Lorimer, HM, p. 250)Google Scholar. More plausible, it seems to me, is the suggestion that zôma is used here as a general term for ‘that which is girded’ (Studniczka, ibid. p. 67), and simply means the corslet itself; the more general term is used instead of thôrêx ‘for metrical reasons’ (Snodgrass, EG AW, p. 172)Google Scholar.

69. Milrê as a broad metal belt worn underneath cuirass: Snodgrass, EGA W, pp. 88–9Google Scholar; AAG, p. 56; contra Brandenburg, , op. cit. (n. 67), pp. 119Google Scholar–20, and id., Sludien zur Mitra (Münster, 1966), pp. 53–177, who identifies the Homeric mitrê with the semi-circular metal ‘apron’ conventionally called mitre by modern archaeologists, and unpersuasively tries to explain away evidence that the Greek term normally refers to a band worn around the waist, or around the head (such as the royal diadem). Some scholars have acknowledged that mitrê may be the same as zôstêr, without noting that zôstêr elsewhere applies to a different kind of belt (Lorimer, HM, p. 245Google Scholar; Trϋmpy, , op. cit. [n. 43], p. 89)Google Scholar; others have said that the zústêr is a belt worn on top of the cuirass, without acknowledging that in most passages it is a belt worn underneath it (Helbig, , op. cit. [n. 68], p. 288Google Scholar; Leaf, , op. cit. [n. 67], 74)Google Scholar. Leaf and Helbig, as cited, believed that belts worn on top of the cuirass were frequently depicted in Archaic art, but Hagemann, A., Griechische Panzerung (Leipzig, 1919), pp. 13–14Google Scholar, pointed out that these ‘belts’ were merely ornamental patterns on the corslets. Nevertheless, a clear depiction of a buckled belt worn on a bell-corslet is found in the top register of a bronze plate from the Argive Heraion (reproduced in Schefold, K., Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art (London, 1966), pl. 32c)Google Scholar. That belts were worn with later types of corslet is clear from Herodotus 9.74, and from e.g. Euphronios' painting of Sleep and Death carrying the body of Sarpedon (New York 1972.11.10), in which both wear belts on top of their corslets (reproduced in Vermeule, , op. cit. [n. 67], p. 38, fig. 27)Google Scholar.

70. Chest wounds without mention of cuirass: e.g. 11.108, 144, 321; 14.402–6, 409–20; blood spurting: 5.113; entrails bursting out: e.g. 14.517. For a full list, see Lorimer, HM, pp. 203–10Google Scholar. Most problematic, apart from the Diomedes-passage cited, is a repeated passage (3.357–60; 7.251 4) in which a man is said to ‘swerve’, and thereby save his life, as a spear hits his corslet. Lorimer objects that there is no room to swerve inside a corslet, although there might be room for it inside a loose tunic (ibid. 205; so too Helbig, , op. cit. [n. 68], p. 286)Google Scholar. Surely this is taking our text too literally: whatever one is wearing, there is no time to swerve once hit by a spear. Evidently, the poet means that the men in question had swerved just before they were hit (cf. Snodgrass, EG AW, p. 172)Google Scholar.

71. Euknêmides (31x Iliad; lOx Odyssey): e.g. 1.17; 24.800; Od. 2.72; 23.319. That ‘well-greaved’ implies ‘bronze-greaved’ is accepted by Snodgrass, EGAW, p. 173Google Scholar, and Catling, H. W., ‘Beinschienen’, Archaeologia Homerica (Göttingen, 1977), p. 145Google Scholar. Silver ankle-guards: 3.330–1; 11.17–18; 16.131–2; 19.369–70 (cf. n. 62 above).

72. The identification was first proposed by Reichel, W., Homerische Waffen ² (Vienna, 1901), pp. 102 ff.Google Scholar, and is universally accepted, though Homer's text might allow different interpretations. A boar's tusk helmet dating from after the destruction of Pylos has been found, so that its exceptional appearance in Homer need not imply a poetic tradition stretching back into Mycenaean times (Snodgrass, AAG, p. 32)Google Scholar.

73. Bronze: e.g. 4.495; 5.562, 681; 6.116, 369; 17.3; 20.111; forehead covered: e.g. 6.9–10; Cheekpieces: 12.183; 17.294; 20.397; Od. 24.523. Nose- and neckguards are not mentioned, but cannot be ruled out. There are quite a few references to the phaloiof helmets (3.362; 10.258; 11.42; 12.384; 13.132–3, 614–15; 16.216–17; 22.314–15); these are sometimes thought to be ‘horns’ or horn-like metal projections (e.g. Lorimer, HM, pp. 239–41)Google Scholar, but when Menelaos is struck with an axe on ‘the top of the phalos… just below the actual crest [lophos’ (13.614–15), it becomes clear that the phalos is the metal part of the crest, the crest-holder, as opposed to the horse-hair plume (lophos) set in it. Admittedly, on this view, the poet slips up slightly when he gives Akhilleus four phaloi but only one golden plume (22.314–16). Other multiple crests: 11.42; 12.384. Double crests are found in paintings, too, but quadruple crests may be another fanciful heroic touch (compare the triple crest of the bellicose general Lamakhos mocked by Aristophanes, , Acharnians 1109–11)Google Scholar. That the crests are tall is suggested by the Menelaos passage as well as by the formula ‘and the crest nodded threateningly down from above’ (e.g. 3.337); the plume scares Astyanax (6.466–70). The nature of the phalara (5.743; 11.41; 16.106) remains obscure: they might be ornamental bosses (Helbig, , op. cit. [n. 68], p. 306) or else theGoogle Scholar individual plates of bronze welded together to form the helmet itself (Lorimer, HM, p. 242)Google Scholar.

74. Rapid exhaustion: Hanson, , Hopliies, p. 78Google Scholar with n. 1; but cf. id., The Western Way of War (London, 1989), p. 56Google Scholar (‘after about thirty minutes of duelling in mock battles … they are utterly exhausted“). Maximum speed: Hanson, , Hopliies, p. 78 with n. 2Google Scholar; Western Way of War, p. 144 (Donlan, citing and Thompson, , CJ 71 (1976), 339–43Google Scholar and CW 72 (1979), 419–20Google Scholar.

75. See n. 47 above.

76. Good seventh-century examples of the juxtaposition of single and twin spears are: a Protoattic stand (Berlin A41 [CVA Berlin 1, pis. 76; 80,2]; cf. Lorimer BSA, fig. 6; Greenhalgh EGW, fig. 44 [vase A3]); the well-known pithos from Mykonos depicting the sack of Troy (e.g. Snodgrass, AAG, pl. 33)Google Scholar; and the even better known Chigi vase. On the latter, and on the continuing use of pairs of spears in the Archaic age generally, see Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 138, 198–9Google Scholar; AAG, pp. 57–8, 97. Geometric vases do at times feature a man holding a single spear, but only in scenes of actual combat (when the warrior may have already thrown the other spear), not in pictures of warriors outside combat or on the march (and therefore still fully armed). On pairs of (hunting) spears in Mycenaean art, see Hockmann, O., ‘Lanze und Speer’, Archaeologia Homerica E2 (Göttingen, 1980), pp. 288–90Google Scholar (cf. Snodgrass, EGA W, p. 115, and a 3)Google Scholar.

77. Mycenaean (Dendra) corslet: Snodgrass, AAG, pp. 24–5Google Scholar; EGAW, p. 173 (where he concludes that it cannot be equated with the Homeric type); Catling, , op. cit. (n. 64), pp. 83–115Google Scholar. Bell-corslets: Snodgrass, EGA W, pp. 72–84Google Scholar; AAG, pp. 41–2; Catling, , op. cit. (n. 64), pp. 116–18Google Scholar; Courbin, , op. cit. (n. 65), 322–86Google Scholar. The earliest picture of a bell-corslet appears on a Late Geometric amphora (Buffalo C12847; Greenhalgh, EGW, vase 38Google Scholar; Wiesner, , op. cit. (n. 26), pl. IVa)Google Scholar. As for the helmets, Snodgrass argued that Homeric-style tall crests were a feature af helmets, Mycenaean (EGA W, p. 35Google Scholar with n. 119; p. 171 with n. 9), but none of the many known examples appears to be decorated with a horse-hair plume; moreover, they are mounted, not on bronze, but on boar's-tusk helmets. Borchhardt, J., ‘Helme’, Archaeologia Homerica El (Gúttingen, 1977), p. 73Google Scholar, states that the existence of tall, plumed crests in Mycenaean times ‘cannot be excluded’; in other words, there is no evidence for it.

78. Greaves: Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 86–88Google Scholar; Catling, , op. cit. (n. 71), pp. 143–61Google Scholar. Both follow Lorimer, BSA, 135Google Scholar, in rejecting the Tiryns shield as evidence, on the grounds that cross-hatching is unlikely to represent metal. Snodgrass' date for the earliest extant greaves (accepted by Catling) is questionable. The greaves were found in a tomb dated to ‘no later than the end of the eighth century’ (Levi, D., Annuario 13–14 [1930–1931], 87–9)Google Scholar, but Snodgrass nevertheless dates them to 650 B.C. on the basis of the stylistic similarity between the beaded pattern running down the centre of the robe of a female statuette of that date and the beaded pattern decorating the rim of the greaves. To my mind, the similarity between two isolated examples of a simple pattern is hardly sufficient to ignore the chronological context of the find. Is it not simpler to assume that the beaded pattern was used in the late eighth century and continued to be used half a century later?

Not until after completing this paper (in 1992) did I see Kunze's, EmilBeinschienen [Olympische Forschungen XXI] (Berlin, 1991)Google Scholar, which dates the earliest bronze greaves found at Olympia to the late eighth century (pp. 4–5, n. 10). Snodgrass has since accepted this dating, and now also dates the early greaves discussed above to the eighth century rather than to c.650 B.C. (‘The “Hoplite Reform” Revisited’, DHA 19 [1993], 58–9Google Scholar; and cf. his review of Kunze, in CR 43 [1993], 376–7)Google Scholar.

79. Eighth-century belts: Brandenburg, , op. cit. (n. 67), pp. 128–30Google Scholar; Snodgrass, AAG, p. 42Google Scholar; cf. pl. 16 and EGAW, pl. 5; Lorimer, HM, pp. 246–7Google Scholar; Kunze, E., ‘Bronzestatuetten’, IV. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, eds. Kunze, E., Schleiff, H. (Berlin, 1944), pp. 118–25Google Scholar.

80. The hoplite shield: Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 61–8 (esp. pp. 63–4 on the wooden core)Google Scholar; cf. Anderson, J. K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley, 1970), pp. 15–16Google Scholar, on the different way in which a hoplite shield might be suspended from the shoulders.

81. For the ‘bronze-faced single-grip round shield’ (and in particular the ‘omphalos-shield’), see Snodgrass, EGA W, pp. 51–7 (52–5)Google Scholar; Lorimer, HM, pp. 167–80 (174–9)Google Scholar; and Borchhardt, , op. cit. (n. 51), pp. 37–50Google Scholar. It must be said that there is no definite evidence that the construction of these shields involved layers of hide, but it is a possibility: it has been suggested that bronze-faced shields of the Herzsprung-type deliberately mimic the appearance of layered hides (Borchhardt, , op. cit. [n. 51], pp. 39–44)Google Scholar.

It may be noted that there is not a trace in Homer of either the square shield not infrequently found on Geometric vases, or, more importantly, the so-called Dipylon or Boeotian shield which is by far the most common form in eighth-century vase-paintings but in the next century is greatly outnumbered by round shields, and generally thought to have become a mere pictorial convention to indicate the ‘heroic’ nature of a scene (Greenhalgh, EGW, pp. 63–70)Google Scholar. One might have expected square and Dipylon shields to be hinted at by Homer, if he reflected eighth-century warfare.

82. Near Eastern borrowing: Snodgrass, EGAW, p. 171Google Scholar; cf. Borchhardt, , op. cit. (n. 51), p. 50Google Scholar.

83. See the contrasting discussions by Wiesner, Greenhalgh, and Littauer and Crouwel, as cited in nn. 33, 34 and 40 above.

84. Chariots followed by warriors on foot: e.g. Greenhalgh, EGW, p. 27 (vase 9; fig. 18)Google Scholar; warriors mounted on chariots: e.g. ibid., p. 35 (vase 40; fig. 27); chariots in combat: ibid., p. 13 (figs. 3 and 4). Ahlberg, G., Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971)Google Scholar also identifies chariots in fragmentary scenes of battle listed as A5 (figs. 6–8) and A6 (fig. 9). It seems likely that, as Greenhalgh, (EGW, pp. 19–39)Google Scholar argues, chariots had been in use throughout the Dark Age (contra Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 159–62)Google Scholar.

85. For the view that Geometric vases depict heroic and legendary scenes, see esp. Snodgrass, A. M., PCPhS 205 (1979), 118–30Google Scholar and AM 95 (1980), 51–8Google Scholar; also Whitley, J. M., Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar. There is some positive evidence that the Greeks used chariots in combat, though admittedly it is not in itself particularly strong. In Archaic and Classical times, the Greeks of Cyprus and Cyrene employed chariots in battle, but they were exceptional (see n. 41 above). Two fifthcentury institutions may or may not be survivals of chariot warfare: at the Panathenaia in Athens, a contest was held between apobatai, who jumped on and off moving chariots (cf. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, , AR, 7.73Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Phokion 20)Google Scholar; the Theban army included an elite infantry corps incongruously known as heniochoi and parabatai, that is to say: ‘drivers’ and ‘men mounted beside them’ (cf. Diodoros Siculus 12.70.1).

86. Seventh- and eighth-century evidence for warriors and squires on horseback: Greenhalgh, EGW, pp. 40 ffGoogle Scholar. The first clear depiction of an armed man riding one horse and holding a second dates from 720–700 B.C. (amphora Buffalo C12847 [cf. n. 77 above]), while an unarmed mounted man holding the reins of a second horse appears even earlier, c.735–20 B.C. (Greenhalgh, EGW, p. 21Google Scholar [vase 13; fig. 8]). Surely these are meant to represent mounted warriors and squires operating in pairs. J. Anderson, K., AJA 79 (1975), 184–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is therefore wrong to say that the practice begins in the seventh century.

Anderson rightly stresses that the advantages of chariots over mounted horses compensate for the drawbacks (ibid., 185). For the, in my view untenable, tactical, economic, and linguistic arguments against the historicity of Homeric chariots, see nn. 38 and 45 above.

87. So Anderson, , op. cit. (n. 86), 185Google Scholar. There is no reason to suppose that chariots became obsolete the moment pairs of mounted horses were introduced, nor, as we shall see, that by 700 or 650 B.C. the changing nature of infantry combat ruled out the use of chariots in battle. The disappearance of chariots from the battlefield is likely to have been gradual, and in seventh-century vase-paintings they need not yet be ‘heroic markers’.

88. There is Mycenaean evidence for warriors on horseback, and the art of riding may have been practised throughout the Dark Age: Snodgrass, EGAW, p. 163Google Scholar; Greenhalgh, EGW, pp. 45–51Google Scholar. When I say that Homer ‘archaized’ in his portrayal of chariots, I differ from similar views in that I am not arguing that Homer archaized by inventing a purely fictional form of chariot-combat, nor that he archaized by replacing the pairs of mounted warriors and squires of his own day by ‘archaic’ chariots (as Greenhalgh, EGW, pp. 40–62, has it)Google Scholar. It is my contention that Homer may have archaized by selecting from among the forms of combat practised in his own day the one which he (rightly or wrongly) believed to correspond to that of the heroes/Mycenaeans.

89. The most influential discussion of the evidence for the emergence of the hoplite phalanx is Lorimer, BSA (1947)Google Scholar, though her suggestion of a date near 700 B.C. is now widely rejected in favour of c.650 (e.g. Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 202–4Google Scholar; JHS 85 (1965), 110)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and some of her interpretations have been questioned (see nn. 90, 93). For an interesting, if not always persuasive, recent theory offering a detailed analysis of how the phalanx might have developed over the centuries from the Dark to Archaic Ages, see Singor, , op. cit. (n. 9)Google Scholar.

90. Individual mobility may also be implied by exhortations to ‘go to the promakhoi’ (fr. 8.4, 11– 12), assuming that one's own promakhoi (not those of the enemy) are meant, which seems likely. For the use of missiles, see also fr. la.23; Kallinos, fr. 1.5, 14 Diehl, and Arkhilokhos, fr. 3 Diehl (with Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 179–80)Google Scholar. The use of the term promakhoi does not in itself imply a Homeric manner of fighting: it might equally well be applied to the front rank of the phalanx. That Tyrtaios does not portray a fully developed phalanx has been noted by Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 181–2Google Scholar; Finley, M. I., ‘Sparta and Spartan Society’ (1968), Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, eds. Shaw, B. D. and Sailer, R. P. (London, 1981), p. 241Google Scholar (‘the poetry of Tyrtaeus… demonstrates that the Spartan army was in a disorder and turmoil unlike anything known from the later, classical period’); and especially Anderson, J. K., Hoplites, pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Singor, , op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 96–104Google Scholar.

91. The phrase is also used at 17.721. These and other examples of co-operation between Homeric warriors are discussed in KC, 5–7. When men flock together, as they do frequently in Homeric battles (see part one, section 1), they are, of course, also ‘standing by one another’. ‘Standing one's ground’ (menein) as opposed to fleeing: e.g. 5.497–8; 11.348; 13.150–1,835–6; 16.312,367–9,405–7 (cf. 13.47–8 and 56).

92. There areof course light- and heavy-armed men in Homer, but there is no clear-cut dividing line between them, and no distinct name for either. Prulees, interpreted by Pritchett, GSW 4, p. 21Google Scholar, as ‘heavy-armed’, is in fact used as a synonym of laoi,’ (fighting) men': 5.744; 11.49 – 12.77; 15.517; 21.90 (cf. 20.412).

93. Lorimer's discussion of the Chigi vase has been corrected by Snodgrass, EGAW, p. 198Google Scholar; Krentz, P., ClAnt 4 (1985), 521Google Scholar; Anderson, , Hoplites, pp. 18–19Google Scholar, concerning the significance of the fluteplayer appearing on the scene, and with regard to the presence of second spears.

One would expect the first spears to be thrown, and it does look as if the warriors in the picture are levelling spears which are considerably smaller and more javelin-like than the ones they are holding in reserve; it also appears that the left-hand front-man is keeping his index finger raised while gripping his spear, which would be an oddly dainty way of holding it, unless a throwing-loop is wound around his finger. Nevertheless, the distance between the armies is so short that the spears appear to be thrust at the enemies' throats. Snodgrass (loc. cit.) suggests ‘ignorance’ on the part of a painter unfamiliar with the real use of the first spear. Perhaps one should consider the possibility that vase-painters were reluctant to leave a (realistic) wide gap between opposing warriors, and opted for the unrealistic but space-saving device of placing them within arm's reach of one another.

The other two relevant vases are the Berlin-aryballos and the Macmillan-aryballos illustrated in e.g. Lorimer BSA, figs. 3 and 10. A somewhat earlier picture on a Protoattic stand (Berlin A41; see n. 76 above) has been adduced as ‘the earliest plausible portrayal of the phalanx’ (Snodgrass, EGAW, pp. 197–8)Google Scholar, but the warriors shown here advancing into battle in a row (or file?) are separated by clear gaps; there is no suggestion of the density of formation that distiguishes the Protocorinthian battlescenes from Homer.

94. Men pierced by spears and arrows: Ahlberg, op. cit. (n. 84), vases A7 (fig. 10); A8 (fig. 12); A9 (fig. 13); All (fig. 15) and B4 (figs. 31–3). For the archaeological evidence, see Snodgrass'catalogues of finds of swords and spears (EGAW, pp. 193–103; 116–33).

95. Archers are depicted on the two Geometric fragments from Argos listed by Ahlberg, op. cit. (n. 84), vases A3 (fig. 3) and B10 (fig. 41); they are also common on early seventh-century fibulae from Boeotia (Lorimer, BSA, 116 [fig. 11])Google Scholar. Of the five warriors depicted on two terracotta shields from Tiryns (c.700 B.C.), three wield a sword, against two who brandish a spear (Lorimer, BSA, pl. 18a)Google Scholar.

96. Protocorinthian vases: (1) Perachora-aryballos (690–80), Lorimer BSA, fig. 7; (2) Lechaionaryballos (690–80), Snodgrass, EGAW, pl. 15abGoogle Scholar; (3) and (4) Syracuse-aryballoi (675–50), Lorimer BSA, figs. 8b [Lorimer's no. 2] and 8c [no. 3]; (5) and (6) Louvre-aryballoi (675–50), Lorimer BSA, figs. 9a–c [no. 4] and 9d [no. 5].

Protoattic vases: (1) Hymettos-amphora (680; Berlin F56), CVA Berlin 1, pi. 43–44; (2) Stand (675; Berlin A41), Lorimer BSA, fig. 6; Morris, S. P., The Black and White Style (New Haven, 1984), pl. 81Google Scholar; (3) Stand (Berlin A40), Morris, , op. cit, pl. 18Google Scholar; (4) Stand from Argive Heraion (670, Athens NM), Morris, , op. cit, pl. 17Google Scholar; (5) Krater (Berlin A33), Morris, , op. cit, pl. 21Google Scholar; (6) Kerameikos-mug (660; Ker.Mus. 73), Morris, , op. cit, pl. 26Google Scholar.

97. Snodgrass, EGAW, p. 180Google Scholar; Lorimer, BSA, 98Google Scholar. Lorimer also notes that the duel over the body of a fallen warrior – a prominent theme in the Iliad – appears to be a new motif in seventh-century vasepainting (ibid., 99). If so, this is highly significant, but I wonder whether a corpse-fight is not already depicted on a Middle Geometric skyphos (Eleusis 741; Ahlberg, op. cit. [n. 84], vase Bll [figs 42–3]), despite the odd fact that there appear to be two corpses, holding hands.

Incidentally, the appearance of a Gorgoneion on Agamemnon's shield, generally recognised as a seventh-century feature (e.g. West, M. L., Hesiod. The Theogony [Oxford, 1966], p. 461)Google Scholar, need no longer be regarded as a late interpolation (Snodgrass, EGA W, p. 171)Google Scholar if it is accepted that Homer reflects early seventh-century patterns of warfare. The Gorgon's head as a shield emblem is first attested on a Protocorinthian aryballos of 675–50 (my no. 4 in n. 96 above; Lorimer, HM, p. 481)Google Scholar.

98. Janko, R., Homer, Hesiodand the Hymns (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar; West, , op. cit. (n. 97), pp. 46–7 (and note his comments on pp. 99, 177, 183)Google Scholar.

99. SW, pp. 54–8, 157–62, 253–8. Taplin, Oliver, Homeric Soundings. The Shaping of the Iliad (Oxford, 1992), pp. 33–5:Google Scholar ‘I sense that Homer fits better with the Greek world after 700 than before’, citing in support an unpublished paper by Osborne, Robin; similarly Wolfgang Kullmann, Homerische Motive (Stuttgart, 1992), p. 264Google Scholar: ‘Der Verfasser ist geneigt, das Epos eher nach 700 v. Chr. als vorher anzusetzen’. Both authors also cite the well-known paper by Burkert, Walter, ‘Das hunderttorige Theben und die Datierung der Iliad', WSt 10 (1976), 5–21Google Scholar, arguing that the Iliad postdates the fall of Egyptian Thebes in 664 B.C.

100. The primary causes of change were surely external to military affairs, as was suggested by Salmon, J., JHS 97 (1977), 84–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His theory still assumes that mass combat was introduced after Homer, and he therefore sees the ‘new’ mass formation as at least an important ‘instrument’ of change; I would reduce its role yet further.

I believe that the process of change was not only less rapid than that envisaged by e.g. Cartledge, P. A., JHS 97 (1977), 20Google Scholar, but also longer drawn-out than the piecemeal development suggested by e.g. Snodgrass, , op. cit. (n. 89), 110–12Google Scholar. By implication, I do not believe that the introduction of the doublegrip shield greatly accelerated the growth of the phalanx-formation; the role of this new shield is a controversial matter discussed by both Cartledge and Snodgrass, and more recently by Hanson, , Hopliles, pp. 67–71Google Scholar. A problem in tracing developments from Homeric to Classical formations is that there is considerable uncertainty as to how the Classical phalanx actually fought. Hanson, op. cit. (n. 74), reconstructs the proceedings in lively, but not always convincing detail; modifications are suggested by Lazenby, J., Hopliles, pp. 87–109Google Scholar; more radically different views are offered by Cawkwell, G., CQ 39 (1989), 375–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Krentz, op. cit. (n. 93). These last two articles appear to me worthy of more positive attention than they have received thus far.