Simply put, the state probably organized its citizens and thus able-bodied men into tribes that had a purpose both census-wise and politically – as opposed to the conventional tribe that is primarily tied by blood relations. The so-called ‘tribe’ in Greek city-states was rather a politico-military evolution, contrary to what ‘tribal’ warfare suggests. As such, the term ‘hoplon’ was possibly mistakenly (or anachronistically) used by Diodorus Siculus, in the 1st century BC. However, modern studies have concluded that the shield was indeed called aspis (not hoplon) by ancient Greeks. So without further ado, let us check out some incredible historical insights you should know about the ancient Classical Greek hoplites (circa 5th – 4th century BC).įun Fact – The word ‘hoplite’ has been often ascribed as being derived from ‘hoplon’, the shield carried by these soldiers.
So the hoplite soldier was expected to take part in battles to safeguard his own interests and holdings, as opposed to viewing the military as a well-paying career.Īnd while the ‘classic’ well-armored and trained Greek soldier was ultimately eclipsed by the more tactical Macedonian phalanx in the late 4th century BC, Greek hoplites (and their predecessors) had dominated the European battlefields for almost three centuries before that. Of course, unlike the man-at-arms of the late medieval period, the hoplite was first and foremost a citizen-soldier.
The Greek word for military equipment roughly translates to hopla, and thus a hoplite simply meant ‘man at arms’ or ‘armored man’.
0 kommentar(er)
