CLA1101 Week 5: Hoplite Warfare PDF

CLA1101: Week 5: Oct. 2 and 4  Topics for Oct. 2 and 4 1) concluded: Hoplite warfare, 600s–300s B.C. 2) The era of the Greek “tyrants” or turannoi : circa 670–510 B.C. 3) The rise of Sparta, circa 700–500 B.C.  A Greek vase painting of hoplite warfare See Pomeroy Plate VI...

CLA1101: Week 5: Oct. 2 and 4  Topics for Oct. 2 and 4 1) concluded: Hoplite warfare, 600s–300s B.C. 2) The era of the Greek “tyrants” or turannoi : circa 670–510 B.C. 3) The rise of Sparta, circa 700–500 B.C.  A Greek vase painting of hoplite warfare See Pomeroy Plate VI for a painted image of two opposing phalanxes about to collide. This is on the famous “Chigi Vase” (as it’s known today): an ancient Greek wine-jug painted in the “Corinthian polychrome” style, from about 650 B.C. Within the constraints of miniaturist art, the painter skillfully shows five or six hoplites in each battle-row to represent what would have been perhaps 400–500 per row in real life. The flute-player’s presence in the painting may perhaps identify the left-hand army as being Spartan. In real life, the flutist probably would not have been walking between two rows— rather, perhaps, at the very end of a row. Note: The textbook drawing on page 304 is not relevant to hoplite warfare. The use of long pikes, slung at the soldiers’ sides, represents a military innovation of the 300s B.C. still “in the future” for our course-content. Hoplite citizen-soldiers of the 600s–400s B.C. grasped relatively short spears over their shoulders, as in Plate VI.  The Chigi Vase: from Corinth, circa 650 B.C. a ProtoCorinthian Olpe ca. 650-640 BCE by the Chigi Painter depicting a Hoplite phalanx. Source: Wikimedia Commons A (conceptual) section of a phalanx Not relevant: on Pomeroy page 304, the Macedonian “pike phalanx”, circa 340 B.C. Two phalanxes about to collide  The ōthismos: the “push” Moving to battle, the first three hoplite ranks would advance with at their spears held horizontally over the right shoulder (thumb backward on the spear). The ranks behind would be holding spears vertically (thumb forward on the spear). - the vulnerable rear and flanks of the phalanx might be protected by cavalry or light- armed troops. Describing hoplite combat, ancient writers like Thucydides use the word ōthismos, the “push”. The two opposing front rows would march or run into each other, colliding. Almost immediately, these men would be locked in place by their successive rows of comrades, following behind. - the men in the second and third rows would crowd-in with their spears levelled, stabbing at their enemies in the opposite front three rows: the spear was long enough to reach.  The ōthismos But then came the real “push”. The fourth row would arrive: This row would be too far back to engage directly, but each man there would lean his shield into the back of his comrade in front and push him toward the enemy. Possibly the upright spear was used as a kind of walking-cane, to add pressure to the push. Then the fifth row: Each man would do likewise to the man in the fourth row: lean his shield into the man’s back, and push. Then came the sixth row, each man doing likewise to the fifth row. - and so on down the rows: maybe eight deep or ten deep or more: Rows #4- to-the-back-row would push. Immense pressure was applied to the front rows, of each phalanx. Literally, the two armies tried to push each other apart.  Spear-fighting and ōthismos The first three rows on each side would engage directly, with spears jabbing. The rows behind would keep the front rows pinned forward. As men in the front would fall, their comrades behind would step forward to replace them. One ancient writer mentions the wise commander’s procedure of assigning your best troops to the front rows, your second-best to the rear rows, and your worst troops to the middle. The troops in the middle rows would have been locked in and could not run away, while the rear two or three rows would have the job to stand fast and keep pushing the others forward. The rear rows could be critical, because that is where a retreat would have to begin.  The ōthismos: horrible For the hoplites in the front rows, the ōthismos experience must have been horrible. Imagine being in this tremendous crush of men who are stabbing at each other: You’re holding up your shield and spear while your arms’ strength ebbs in fatigue, with breathing difficult, with being unable to see much or hear anything distinctly (due to the cumbersome helmet), and with death almost certain at any instant. In the front rows—indeed for most of the rows—you could not run away. There was no place to go except possibly forward. You were completely crammed in. After a soldier’s spear broke or was lost, he drew his sword—less helpful than the long spear. The hoplite’s sword: a desperate weapon  Death in the ōthismos - we hear of men suffocated to death, pinned upright in the press. But more usually, of course, men died from wounds. - wounds were received typically around the edge of the bronze breastplate: in the neck, thighs, genitals, or head (with the helmet denting-in from a blow, to kill the wearer anyway). Possibly the breastplate could be pierced by a spear point. - otherwise, any puncture-wound that sent a soldier to the ground could prove fatal, as the man was likely to be stomped to death by oblivious friend and foe alike. Even a man who survived the battle with a wound could easily die afterward, from infection or gangrene etc., in an era before modern medicine.  The retreat Probably the ōthismos lasted at most an hour, before one side started to give way. - the army that was being beaten might start to give ground in orderly fashion and then retreat in good order, walking backward, still facing forward. - but more likely, the losing-side phalanx would collapse: Some of the rear-rows’ soldiers, sensing that their side was losing, might turn-tail and run away. When this happened, other soldiers would panic: The whole eight or ten rows would begin collapsing like dominoes, from the rear rows forward, toward the front. The phalanx would be reduced to a chaotic rabble, running away. As said at Slide 10, above, the rear of a phalanx was the only place where a retreat could begin. All of the other rows were locked in place.  “Return with your shield or upon it.” A fleeing hoplite would always throw away his cumbersome shield. It would be useless to him once the formation had broken, and his first thought would be to get rid of it. A battlefield where one army had disorderly retreated must have been littered with discarded shields. From this fact derives the ancient Greek value on a soldier returning from war with possession of his shield. If you still had your shield, it meant you hadn’t run away. If you had lost your shield, could there be any credible reason except that you had run away? Thus the Spartan mother’s proverbial command to her hoplite son, “Return with your shield or upon it.” That is, “Return either alive with your shield or dead with your shield, but do not come home as demonstrably a coward with no shield.” (Thanks, Mom.)  Greek cavalry: the demographics Regarding horses and the aristocracy, see Slides 41–43 in last week’s slideshow. In ancient Greece, an alternative term for the aristocrats as a social group was “the hippeis”: literally, “the horsemen”. In a Greek army, the cavalry consisted of young and middle-aged men from rich families—typically aristocratic families, which traditionally had the wealth and land to raise horses. Like the hoplite, the cavalryman supplied his own equipment, including his own horse. Thus, cavalry service was confined to those families that could afford it financially (just as was hoplite service). As made clear in mentions by ancient writers, the individual cavalryman of a Greek city-state would train also as a hoplite. He could serve either function, at the commander’s discretion. The commander would have to choose re: a maximum complement of hoplites versus the size of the cavalry arm.  The cavalry: their job in a hoplite retreat Not every Greek city had a cavalry contingent, but most of the larger cities did: Athens, Chalcis, and Thebes, for example, as well as cities of the horse-breeding northern-Greek region called Thessaly. During a hoplite retreat, the cavalry of either side might come into action. The winning side’s cavalry would try to ride down the enemy hoplites— now helpless as being scattered individuals—and slaughter them. Meanwhile the losing side’s cavalry could try to cover the retreat, riding out to confront the enemy cavalry or infantry that was in pursuit.  The Athenian retreat at Delium: 424 B.C. The Athenian philosopher Plato’s treatise Symposium (circa 380 B.C.) includes a vivid anecdote about the chaotic Athenian retreat from the Battle of Delium in 424 B.C. during the Peloponnesian War. In Plato’s telling, the philosopher Socrates, serving as an Athenian hoplite, aged about 45, strides calmly amid the rout of thousands of panicked fellow-hoplites. Socrates and a few comrades still have their shields, holding them raised in a defensive cluster. Enemy cavalry dash past on both sides, looking for easier prey. Meanwhile, a lone Athenian cavalryman, Socrates’ friend Alcibiades, rides alongside, trying to guard Socrates and his group. Glamorous young aristocrats: Athenian cavalry-cadets ride in a formal procession at Athens, in a panel of the famous Parthenon frieze, the bas-relief marble carvings from the Parthenon at Athens, from about 432 B.C. The horsemen’s near-nakedness is an idealized image, not accurate for actual field-dress. This frieze-panel is one of the famous “Elgin Marbles”, housed in the British Museum in London.  You needed cavalry to chase a fleeing enemy If the winning side had no cavalry arm—or had not a lot of light-armed troops—then the fleeing hoplites of the losing side could probably all get away. (This is Pomeroy’s interpretation: page 86.) The reason: For the hoplite foot-soldiers on the winning side, it would be impossible to give chase in good order. Above all other considerations, the winning side would have to maintain its unwieldy phalanx formation so as not to put itself in danger. The winning-side hoplites could not move forward as fast as the beaten side could run away. If the winning side had no cavalry or light-arms, this meant the losers were left alone to flee.  The hoplite’s discipline Please understand that a single hoplite was helpless if isolated: His shield was too big and his body-armour too heavy for him to be an effective individual fighter. The hoplite’s safety and usefulness lay in organized, disciplined coordination with his comrades in the phalanx. Every man’s job was to obey orders and maintain discipline. If individual soldiers were to break ranks—for example, in turning-tail in the rear to flee, or in chasing after a retreating enemy in front—then the whole phalanx came into danger of dissolving. Instead, you owed it to your comrades and your city to stand in that row and endure whatever happened to you.  The virtue of sōphrosunē Endurance, discipline, calmness in adversity, self-restraint, and teamwork: These were the hoplite virtues—and these same ideals would colour the more-general Greek concepts of manliness and responsibility in the 500s–300s B.C. Such ideals of self-control and endurance are reflected in the classical Greek word sōphrosunē. The word is best translated as “self-restraint” or “self-control” but sometimes is mistranslated as “moderation”. It meant moderate or calm behaviour in the face of adversity (or discomfort or temptation). Basically, the notion of sōphrosunē encapsulates the various moral strengths of a hoplite who doesn’t break ranks in phalanx. You were supposed to keep control of your fears, pain, etc. Footnote: Alternatively, sōphrosunē in English can be written as sōphrosynē.  Hoplite warfare: circa 669–338 B.C. All the famous Greek land battles of the 600s to mid 300s B.C. were hoplite battles. After the mid 300s, tactics and equipment would change with the military reforms of King Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great. In the Persian Wars (490–479 B.C.), the Persian infantry were not armoured as hoplites. Rather, the Persians relied mainly on light infantry. This disparity would strongly contribute to Greek battlefield superiority.  Thucydides on the phalanx’s “rightward drift” The historian Thucydides—describing the Battle of Mantinea, in 418 B.C., which he observed first-hand during the Peloponnesian War—mentions a technical quirk of hoplite warfare: In the approach to battle, a phalanx would involuntarily tend to (a) string-out its rows toward the right and (b) drift rightward as a unit. Thus, when the two phalanxes collided, each phalanx would overlap the opposing one on the right, and this overlap gave each phalanx an initial advantage on the right. This rightward extension occurred because, in approaching the enemy, each man would involuntarily drift rightward: “Fear makes every man seek protection…in his comrade’s shield on his right,” Thucydides explains. Through human nature, the advancing hoplites tended to cringe rightward. And because this extension gave each army’s right wing a brief advantage at the start, normally each army would be winning, at the battle’s start, on that army’s right-hand side. Normally, each army would be winning, at the battle’s start, on that army’s right-hand side.  Thucydides on the phalanx’s rightward drift Here are Thucydides’ full words in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Book V, chapter 71— “All armies, when they are moving into action, tend to extend outward on their right wing. Thus each side tends to outflank the enemy’s left wing with its own right wing. This is because fear makes every man seek protection, for his exposed right side, in the shield of his comrade on the right, thinking that the closer he draws in, the better he will be protected. “The defect originates with the first man in the front row at the far right: He always wants to turn his exposed right side from the enemy, and the rest of the army, from a similar fear, follows suit.” Thus, the collision of two phalanxes didn’t actually look like this… …but more like this.  The rightward drift: exploited by Sparta Sparta’s army was trained to maximize this initial advantage: The soldiers on the right wing would swivel inward, thus “rolling up” the enemy phalanx from that side. This difficult maneuver was possible because Sparta’s phalanx was “articulated by battalions”. That is, “articulated” = “hinged”. Sparta’s phalanx was divided conceptually into rectangular-shaped battalions, each under command of a field-officer. Officers and soldiers of the phalanx’s extreme right front were trained to wheel inward, to their left, in a coordinated maneuver soon after the joining of battle. - Sparta’s tactic was similar to a left-wheel scrum in modern rugby The tactic maximized Sparta’s right-hand-side shock power, and gave Sparta’s phalanx an advantage, in battle after battle, from the 500s to early 300s B.C. The Spartan “left-wheel scrum” (red) Part of a Spartan battalion, within the phalanx Sparta’s advantage: countered eventually by Thebes As said, Sparta’s tactic of maximizing its right-hand-side collision would give Spartan phalanxes an advantage—until the early 300s B.C. By then, non-Spartan military minds had found ways to counter the enemy’s right-wing advantage. They could do this by stacking their own left wing. The innovator here would be the warlike city of Thebes. At the Battle of Leuctra, between Thebes and Sparta, 371 B.C., the Thebans destroyed a Spartan army and ended Sparta’s 300-year-long reign of hoplite superiority. We will discuss in a later class session.  Hoplite-war strategy: 600s–300s B.C. Definition: our English word “strategy”. Strategy is the category of overall planning in military science: the planning and conduct of campaigns, as opposed to decision-making on the battlefield or in manoeuvres. Commanders’ decisions in battle would fall into the category of “tactics”. Tactics are more local, more reactive, and smaller-scale than strategy. In strategy, hoplite warfare was very simple, and relied on an element of cooperation between belligerents. The attacking army would march into enemy territory, and the defending army would march out to meet them, before the attackers reached the defenders’ city. Normally the defenders would not wait passively inside the city, but would send out the army to defend the countryside farms, on which the city’s food supply depended. For example: Hysiae, on the road to Argos Light-armed troops: underused in the hoplite era Routinely, students ask about the use—or more accurately the non-use—of light- armed infantry during the main hoplite centuries, mid-600s to mid-300s B.C. Regarding “light arms” such as archers, slingers, and javelin throwers, why do we not hear more of their use? These types of foot soldiers would have operated without cumbersome armour, giving them the advantage of speed and agility. We do hear of light-arms being used in hoplite battles to guard the phalanx’s vulnerable flanks and rear. But often it seems they could have been used more often in battle—for example, to maximize a victory by chasing down a fleeing enemy, as an alternative to using cavalry for that. Furthermore… Light-armed troops: underused also in strategy Furthermore, and more strategically, light-arms could have been used to block an enemy’s column of march. Greece being a mountainous country, the need for light-armed troops should have been obvious. In other words, why wait cooperatively for the enemy’s approach—allowing them to march slowly over the intervening mountain range and down into your city’s farming plain, to have your hoplite battle on the plain—when instead you could perhaps block their approach through the mountains? Thus, in theory, a defending commander could send a thousand light-arms onto the mountain route to stop the enemy, or at least harry them there, making it difficult and costly for them to approach. Yet we never hear of this strategic use of light-arms, for example during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431–404 B.C.).  Light-armed troops: underused The basic answer is “Yes, this should have been done.” In the study of world history, this constitutes a classic example of a blind spot in military thinking. Military minds can be notoriously rigid and convention-bound: Traditionally, their training is to obey orders and follow the rules, not to innovate. The ancient Greeks saw warfare as being a manly and consensual ordeal, to be decided by heavy infantry (= hoplites). To the Greeks, it was like a brutal sport, including some of the rules or cooperation that are expected in sport. For example, the use of archers was considered unsportsmanlike. This military mindset would not start to change until the 420s B.C., amid the long Peloponnesian War. During that war, repeated battles would teach lessons to individual commanders at both Athens and Sparta. Then at last would begin better battlefield-use of light-armed troops. We will discuss, in upcoming classes.  Also underused: ancient Greek cavalry Also in this category of underused non-heavy-infantry arms was cavalry. Yes, it’s true that cavalry had some battlefield function in the hoplite era. And yes, it’s true that ancient Greek cavalry generally was hampered by certain technical disadvantages, including— no stirrups. This simple but brilliant device, allowing the rider to “stand up” on horseback, would be invented only in the 400s A.D., probably by the Huns. no leather saddles (only saddle cloths) no use of horseshoes small horses. Greek breeds of this era were more like ponies, with limited height and strength. small cavalry contingents. A city’s reliance on rich aristocrats for its cavalry would naturally limit the possible numbers—as did Greece’s mountainous terrain, with scarce plains for horse breeding. Nevertheless, our modern suspicion that ancient Greek military minds could have done a bit more with cavalry on the battlefield is proven by the innovations of Kings Philip and Alexander of Macedon in the mid 300s B.C. These two commanders would find ways for cavalry to attack an enemy infantry-phalanx: something we don’t see in the 600s–400s B.C.  Recommended reading —but not required for CLA1101 The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece by Victor Davis Hanson, Oxford University Press: 1989 —cited in Pomeroy, page 192 bottom This small paperback offers a knowledgeable and clearly written explanation of hoplite warfare. The “Western way” of the title refers to Hanson’s thesis: that hoplite warfare’s frontal-attack ethos—being contrary to common sense and self-preservation— marked the beginning of a whole philosophy of European battlefield tactics, down through World War I.  Lecture topic #2: The Greek “tyrants” in the city-states Pomeroy pp. 87–89 and 402. Also pp. 135–141: Pisistratus and Hippias at Athens Our word “tyrant” comes from the Greek word turannos, meaning “a usurper”: someone who seizes power illegally. The word’s plural form is turannoi (“tyrants”). The abstract form is turannis (“government by a tyrant”). Note: Pomeroy uses the word-forms tyrannos, tyrannoi, and tyrannis, with the letter “y”. Either styling is acceptable in our CLA1101 class. The original word turannos did not denote an insane or oppressive rule. Normally, the Greek tyrants were not evil.  The Greek “tyrants” or turannoi The earliest tyrants arose as a consequence of the hoplite military change- over: The first two city-states where tyrants seized power were Argos and Corinth. Significantly, both those cities were at the forefront of the hoplite transformation in Greece. Various tyrants would reign throughout much of the Greek world for over 150 years: circa 670–510 B.C. In Greek Sicily, tyrants would linger sporadically, into the 300s B.C.  Our ancient sources for the Greek tyrants For topics of the 600s B.C. like “hoplite warfare”, “colonization”, and “tyrants”, we start to rely more on extant writings from ancient Greece, including written works of history. Our sources for the tyrants-topic include— the historian Herodotus, writing circa 440 B.C. Herodotus covered events mainly in Greece and Asia Minor, beginning in the 600s B.C. and culminating in the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C. See Pomeroy pp. 209–211 and the Brightspace item “The historian Herodotus” in the “Read for Sept 27” module. the philosopher Aristotle in his treatise Politics, from circa 330 B.C. comments from certain Greek poets who experienced the tyrant era first- hand. For example, Alcaeus of the city of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos writes of the bitterness of exile, circa 600 B.C. He was an aristocrat who had fled from a tyrant at Mytilene: See Pomeroy page 96 lower. Before the tyrants arose: government by aristokratia —see the Sept. 25–27 slideshow: Slides 28 and 48  review: Government by aristokratia, circa 700 B.C. The black peak on the diagram = the upper class or aristoi (meaning the “best people”): the families that were “noble-born”. The word aristokratia means “power by the aristoi ”. - under an aristokratia or aristocracy, only this group could govern the polis. On the diagram, political power is indicated by the black shading. - these men and their families numbered perhaps 20 percent or less of the city-state’s population. And excluded from any voice in government were— The middle band, in white on the diagram: the middle-income class or mesoi. They included merchants, craftsmen, and small-holding farmers. These families numbered more than 50 percent of the city-state’s population. The lowest band, in white on the diagram: the citizen poor, mostly rural. They were known collectively as thētes, “labourers”. - modern scholars estimate the thētes at 30 percent, or nearly so, of the citizen body.  Who were the middle class? See Pomeroy page 80: general comments. The pyramid diagram is a bit misleading, because the upper fringe of the middle class might have been as rich as or richer than the least-rich of the aristocrats. Specifically, some of the sea-trading middle-class families would have become rich by the late 700s and early 600s B.C. - nevertheless they were excluded from a voice in government. Below the rich traders but still in the middle class were the “small-holding” farmers. This group is sometimes called in English by the traditional English term yeomen (singular: yeoman). Yeomen were farmers who owned their own land, of modest size. They were not rich but not poor. Because a typical city-state included countryside farmland (see Pomeroy pp. 73 bottom to 74), the yeomen would constitute the major part of the city’s middle-class population. The aggrieved middle class, circa 700–660 B.C. Important in this context is that the middle class in a typical city-state was aggrieved: Although they weren’t so afflicted as the city’s poorest citizens, they nevertheless resented the exclusivity and incompetence of aristocratic rule. - see Pomeroy pp. 82–83 and page 85 (upper half) regarding middle-class resentment of the aristocracy. We possess extant writings that express this middle-class anger and frustration: from the poet Hesiod, circa 700 B.C. Hesiod’s verses include bitter comment on an unjust judicial system, rigged in favour of the aristocrats. Pomeroy calls Hesiod “the indignant voice of the middle [class]”. - on Hesiod, see (i) the Pomeroy pages above and (ii) the Word doc “The poets Homer and Hesiod” (bottom section: brief) in the “Read for Sept 20” Brightspace module.  Middle-class hoplites under an aristokratia After 700 B.C., big changes to Greece, as detailed in our last week’s lecture: By the mid 600s B.C., each city-state had a hoplite army, comprising the city’s middle and upper classes: These were the approximately 4,000 or 7,000 or 9,000 active-adult male citizens whose families could afford the needed bronze armour. Where before, circa 700 B.C., the city-state had relied mainly on its aristocrats for defence in war, now, statistically, the heavy infantry comprised mostly middle-class men, with the aristoi being just a added minority. (As said already, individual aristocrats could serve as hoplite infantry or as cavalry, at the commander’s choice.) Thus the power dynamics had changed in the typical city-state, where the middle class was being excluded and disadvantaged by the aristoi. Now suddenly the polis and aristoi were relying on the middle class for military defence. So what now about middle-class grievances?  Footnote: Who were the citizen poor? Regarding the pyramid diagram’s lowest horizontal band: the citizen poor— - as said already, they were called thētes, “labourers” (singular form: thēs). See Pomeroy pp. 55, 80, and 402 for a definition. - they were free-born citizens, not slaves. Slaves aren’t included on the diagram. The defining fact about a thēs was that he didn’t own the land he farmed or the workshop he worked in. Rather, he worked for hire (= “a labourer”) or for a crop-share (“a peasant”, “a tenant farmer”). Probably we should picture two different levels of thētes— (a) a better-off level: peasants and lower-end skilled workers (b) the truly poor: farm-hands, day labourers, migrant workers, the unemployed, etc. On the peasantry’s suffering under the aristocrats, see Pomeroy page 80 and (at Athens) page 132. In a city’s hoplite army, the thētes might serve as light-armed troops: slingers, javelin men, archers. At Athens—later, during the 400s B.C.—the thētes would serve as the navy oarsmen.  Fast-forward: after the Greek tyrants arose… By the latter 600s B.C., with the tyrants in power, the political diagram of a typical Greek polis would change to this— After the Greek tyrants arose  After the tyrants arose By this configuration, by the late 600s, at least some voice in government had been granted to every male citizen who qualified as a hoplite. It sounds contradictory, but under the tyrants, a hoplite would have the right to vote in the assembly (the ekklēsia) and perhaps have the right to run for minor political offices. So as you see, the tyrants weren’t so “tyrannical” after all. Overall, the tyrants brought enlightened rule. Mainly it was the aristoi who hated the tyrants: See Pomeroy page 87, lower middle. The cities’ middle class and lower-income class loved the tyrants, usually—at least at first, at the phenomenon’s start, in the 600s B.C. A new term for us in CLA1101: “hoplite franchise” —in this diagram, about 60 percent of the male citizens have the vote At left, old-fashioned aristokratia. At right, hoplite franchise Under the tyrants, no more aristokratia. Hoplite franchise was here to stay  Under the tyrants, no more aristokratia As a group, the Greek tyrants broke forever the aristocrats’ monopoly on political power. The tyrants terminated aristokratia as a form of government in the city- states. The aristocrats themselves were not annihilated—no mass executions as in the French Revolution. But they lost their cushy power-monopoly. Also, their previously boundless social or economic privileges got curtailed, and their previously absolute control over peasants in the countryside was weakened. As well, individual aristocrats who resisted or plotted against the tyrant might get executed or chased into exile. See above, Slide 43 (bottom), on the aristocratic poet Alcaeus. What did the hoplites vote on, under a dictator? Question: If the turannos ruled as dictator, what were 60 percent of the male population voting about? Answer: Evidently, one skill of the successful turannos was to keep control of a city where citizens were nevertheless voting: a situation not too different from many 20th- and 21st-century dictatorships. The tyrant could arrange that issues-for-voting were kept simple and local (“Should we build a new road to the harbour?”), while reserving for himself the more important decisions (“Should we go to war with Samos?” “Should we confiscate some aristocratic land and redistribute it to the peasants?”). Also, the tyrant could make sure that the city’s top officials (Treasurer, War Leader, etc.) remained always his own hand-picked men, even if they ostensibly got elected by vote.  The turannos: a “class traitor” In a slightly complicated twist, the tyrant typically arose as a “class traitor”: By birth, he was an aristocrat himself. That is, he was someone already trained in leadership, someone who perhaps had already gained fame as an army commander or as an athlete at the Olympic Games, or in some other aristocratic pursuit. Probably this man also had the vision to see that the old, traditional, aristocratic government was ripe for collapse—and that he himself could either go down with it or take the initiative to lead the New Order in his city-state. For example, the tyrant Pisistratus of Athens belonged to an aristocratic clan that claimed descent from the Homeric hero Nestor. - or see Pomeroy page 87, lower middle, on the “half-nobleman” Cypselus of Corinth, who made himself tyrant there.  The turannos: a “class traitor” At the start, this dissident nobleman would equip himself with some kind of armed coterie and would illegally seize power from the city’s other aristocrats. He would betray his fellow aristocrats—thus earning their hatred. This is the viewpoint of the aristocrat Alcaeus (again, Slide 43, above). As said already, the tyrant would seize power after secretly promising to give a political voice to the middle class. Once in power, he kept his promise and enjoyed the middle class’s support. So it’s not just that one day a Cypselus or a Pisistratus breaks into the nobles’ council chamber with ten bodyguards. Rather, the operative factor would be his support from the middle class and the political leverage that the middle class could wield as being the majority of the hoplite army. Once the middle class got behind the individual tyrant-to-be, the aristocrats could not hope to stop his rebellion.  The tyrant: a friend also to the poor Under the tyrants, the non-hoplite lower-middle class and the lowest-income class might continue to be omitted from the vote. That’s why we still see a white portion at the bottom of the “hoplite franchise” pyramid-diagram on Slide 53, above. Nevertheless, a sensible tyrant would plan to deliver some benefits, such as public amenities, to the city’s lower-income brackets. Amenities for the poor: a public fountain, shown on an Athenian water jug, circa 515 B.C. —see Pomeroy page 138, photo and caption  The Greek tyrants’ rise to power —enabling factors in the late 700s to 600s B.C. (1) in the Greek city-states, the rise of an economic middle class: rising in numbers, aggregate wealth, and self-confidence. This came as a result of cities’ increased prosperity (due to increased trade and manufacturing) and population growth (due to prosperity), following the city-building synoecisms of the 700s B.C. On the growth of the early city- states, see Pomeroy page 75, upper middle, and page 63, lower (2) a growing discontent within the middle class at being excluded from political power. Pomeroy pp. 82–85 and last week’s slideshow, Slides 27–28: on aristocratic monopoly. (3) unhappiness generally, among commoners of middle and lower-income class, at the injustice, corruption, and incompetence of aristocratic rule: above, Slides 47–48. …and… The tyrants’ rise to power: enabling factors, continued (4) by about 670 B.C., a shift in military organization, to using hoplites. Hoplite warfare turned the middle class into an essential part of the city’s defence: Numerically, this demographic now supplied about two-thirds of the city’s army. The military change gave tremendous political leverage to the middle class within a city: The aristocrats and the rest of the city needed them, now. Again, see Slide 48, above. (5) possibly there might be an immediate cause for a tyrant’s rise at a city-state: Some act of mismanagement or excess by the aristocratic government would spark public anger and discredit the government. A path would be opened for an intending turannos. Item (5): an example of aristocratic mismanagement At the city of Mytilene, on the island of Lesbos, the ruling aristocratic clan was the Penthilids (Penthilidai, “descendants of Penthilus”). Aristotle in the Politics (1311b) describes an incident of around 600 B.C.: The Penthilids were beating their fellow citizens with clubs in the street, when suddenly the Penthilids were attacked and murdered by “Megacles and his friends”. Further details are lost to us, including who Megacles was. But the incident evidently marked the start of a tyrant revolution, sparked by the ruling clan’s outrageous behavior. Were the Penthilids punishing the people for some offence? Or was the beating just a weird example of aristocratic privilege?  A second example of aristocratic mismanagement Similarly, Aristotle (Politics 1305a) mentions that at Megara, circa 630 B.C., a man named Theagenes made himself tyrant after leading the common people to “slaughter the cattle of the rich that had been let out to graze beside the river”. Was there some ongoing dispute between the rulers and the poorer farmers, perhaps over land use? Was it during a food shortage? Were the nobles squandering the prime riverside land for grazing by their cattle rather than for growing crops? Regardless of the details, Theagenes evidently exploited some volatile situation, so as to seize power. Theagenes is mentioned at Pomeroy page 88 upper middle and page 130 upper.  A third example of aristocratic mismanagement? Also possibly relevant is an event that (perhaps) preceded the turannis at Corinth. Corinth experienced one of the very earliest tyrants, Cypselus, from circa 657 B.C. In the “Read for Sept 27” Brightspace module, see “The Greek colonizing era”, page 5, regarding Corinth’s colony-city Corcyra. If the date circa 664 B.C. is correct for Corcyra’s revolt from mother-city Corinth, then does the loss of Corcyra count as an example of aristocratic mismanagement at Corinth? In other words, did the aristocratic government at Corinth recklessly alienate and lose its valuable colony Corcyra, circa 664 B.C.? And was public anger rife then at Corinth? If so, this surely belongs in the run-up to Cypselus seizing power, about seven years later. However, it’s possible that the Corcyra revolt occurred not in 664 B.C. but later, circa 600 B.C., after Corinth had become a turannis. In that case, our intriguing guesswork here would be wrong.  The most famous tyrants: circa 675–510 B.C. Famous or notorious tyrants of Greek history include— - ? Pheidon of Argos, circa ?675–660 B.C. - Cypselus of Corinth, circa 657–627 B.C., and his son Periander, circa 627–585 B.C. See Pomeroy page 88, lower - Orthagoras of Sicyon, arose circa ?640 B.C. Sicyon is in the northeastern Peloponnese - Cleisthenes of Sicyon, circa 600–570 B.C. Grandson (?) of Orthagoras - Theagenes of Megara, arose circa 630 B.C. - Thrasybulus of Miletus, arose circa 630 B.C. - Pisistratus of Athens, circa 546–527 B.C., and his son, Hippias, circa 527–510 B.C. See Pomeroy pp. 135–141. Hippias was the last major tyrant of mainland Greece. At Athens, a mature democracy would emerge after his downfall. - Polycrates of Samos, circa 540–522 B.C. Periander and Pisistratus are the two best-remembered of these tyrants. Nearly all the top city-states were tyrannies in this era Typically, the first- and second-tier Greek city-states of the 600s–500s B.C. were ruled by turannoi. The city under its turannos would rise to new levels of achievement and efficiency. The relevant city-list includes all the cities listed on the slide above, plus Ephesus (in Ionia) and Mytilene (on the island of Lesbos). The major exception was Sparta, which rose to greatness in the 500s B.C. and never had a tyrant. Throughout history, a benevolent dictatorship has always been the most efficient form of government. Dictators get things done quickly, with no lengthy, “wasteful” debate. Elaborate improvement-projects that would have seemed too daunting to an aristocratic government—such as a quick transition to a hoplite army (Argos) or piping-in free water (Samos, Athens) or founding some 15 far-away colonies within a few decades (Miletus)— can be pushed through by a tyrant. The tyrant: a friend of trade and manufacturing A tyrant might sponsor trade and local crafts, such as pottery-making at Corinth and at Athens. See Pomeroy page 89, lower half: Greek black-figure pottery emerges at Corinth under the tyrant Cypselus, circa 650 B.C. red-figure ware emerges at Athens under the tyrant Pisistratus, circa 530 B.C. An example of black figure, from Athens, circa 515 B.C. —Pomeroy page 138, photo and caption An example of red figure, from Athens, circa 510 B.C. —Pomeroy page 128, photo and caption The Isthmus of Corinth roadway Another example of tyrants’ capital projects: at Corinth, Cypselus-and-Periander’s stone-paved road, four miles long, for ships’ goods to be carted across the Isthmus between Corinth’s two harbours, east and west. Never would an aristocratic government have undertaken such an innovative and expensive improvement.  Good tyrants at Corinth and Athens Corinth, Athens, and Miletus were the three city-states that did best under their tyrants. Corinth in the 600s B.C. would be the top commercial-and-maritime power in mainland Greece, under father-and-son Cypselus and Periander. Athens in the 500s, under father-and-son Pisistratus and Hippias, would overtake Corinth economically. See Pomeroy pp. 136–139 for Pisistratus’ benefits to Athens: for example (Slides 61 and 69, above), the piping-in of fresh water, available for free at public fountains, for the poor and for all families at Athens. Generally, the supplying of fresh water was an innovation of the Greek tyrants and the hallmark of a successful tyrant.  The end of the tyrants: 500s B.C. See Pomeroy page 88 bottom for the effective time limit of rule by a tyrant-government: “…second- or third-generation tyrants were overthrown…” Normally a tyrant government at any city would last at most two generations, or not fully three. The tyrant reigned successfully, bequeathing to his son. The son might or might not be successful, but by the grandson’s turn, the dynasty collapsed, perhaps violently: The city-state’s common people, maybe in link with the displaced aristoi, would organize to oust the dictatorship. By the late 500s B.C., this “tyrant expiry date” had been reached in many Greek cities. Overall, it was impossible to perpetuate constructively the factors that had brought the earlier tyrant to power in the first place. However, with the tyrant gone, the city did not revert to aristocratic rule… The tyrants’ legacy: government by hoplite franchise The tyrants’ legacy: government by hoplite franchise Pomeroy pp. 88–89: “Second- or third-generation tyrants were overthrown, and their exiled opponents returned, usually to [maintain a hoplite franchise]. Rarely, however, were the poleis the same after a tyranny. …So it is paradoxically possible to view tyranny as a transitional structure that led to democracy.” Lecture topic #3: Rise of Sparta: 700–500 B.C. Pomeroy Chapter 4 Pomeroy map, page 107  Sparta before 700 B.C. - Circa 1050 B.C., Dorian Greeks arrive to settle Laconia and the whole southern Peloponnese. In a future era, by the 400s B.C., Sparta will be seen as the leader of all Dorian cities of the Greek world. - Circa 900–770 B.C., in the Eurotas River valley in Laconia, five villages unite to create one city-state: Sparta, or Spartē in Greek. - See Pomeroy pp. 73–74 and last week’s slideshow: Slides 21–13, on the late Dark Age phenomenon of “synoecism” (sunoikismos: “amalgamation”), whereby city-states arose throughout Greece. - The name Spartē meant either “sown land” or “broom shrub”. - Circa 730–700 B.C.: the First Messenian War —Pomeroy page 108 says the war “ended around 720”, but Pomeroy’s page xviii timeline gives the war’s dates as above.  Sparta by 700 B.C. The conquests of Laconia and Messenia: Pomeroy page 108 - By 700 B.C. Sparta had captured the whole plain of Laconia and had invaded westward across the high Tagytus mountains to capture the plain of Messenia, the most fertile in southern Greece. - The farm-produce of these two plains would support Sparta for the next 330 years. - Sparta’s possession of two major farming plains gave it the largest home territory of any Greek city-state: about 3,000 square miles, roughly two- fifths of the Peloponnese. - Meanwhile, the 2nd-largest home territory of any polis was that of Athens, at 1,000 square miles.  Sparta by 700 B.C. Circa 706 B.C., Sparta founded the colony Taras in south Italy. See “The Greek colonizing era” in the “Read for Sept 27” Brightspace module: pp. 4 lower to 5 top. Although highly successful, Taras would be Sparta’s only colony. This because— By about 700 B.C. Sparta had acquired, through the conquest of Laconia and Messenia, all the land it could possibly need. Sparta had no reason for further overseas colonizing.  Sparta by 700 B.C.: the perioikoi In the early stage of the Laconia conquest (circa 790 B.C.?), Sparta evidently incorporated the conquered non-Spartan villagers as second-class citizens: They were below the full Spartans in status and with no say in government, but still enjoyed fundamental civil rights. Citizens of this lower rank were called perioikoi: “dwellers around” (singular form: perioikos). Note the important Greek root-word oikos, for which see Pomeroy page 54. “Dwellers around”: The “around” part (peri-) may refer to their farmland. Probably they were pushed out of the best land along the Eurotas River, and relegated instead to the foothills beyond. Thus they dwelt around or beyond the pure-Spartan settlements in the best valley-land. The word perioikoi in English can take the latinized form “perioeci”: Pomeroy page 108 top and page 399. Either spelling is acceptable, but (as usual) the pure-Greek form of the word is easier to understand.  Sparta by 700 B.C.: the helotai But then, probably around the mid 700s B.C., Sparta changed its policy toward how to incorporate the next stages of its Laconian conquest. This change seems to have occurred as the Spartans reached the southern extremes of Laconia, along the seacoast. Henceforth, any new conquests would not be absorbed as perioikoi but as something different— The conquered peoples of (a) southern Laconia and (b) all of Messenia were made into slaves: technically, “agrarian slaves” or “serfs”. The Spartan name for them was helotai, “helots”. Pomeroy pp. 108–109. Possibly the term helotai derives from the name of an originally non-Spartan seaside village called Helos (“the Marsh”) in southern Laconia. The Helotai (that is, Helos inhabitants) were reduced to helotai (new meaning: “slaves”).  Sparta by 700 B.C.: the helotai Sparta’s helots were kept alive to work the land, which they no longer owned. Half their produce went to Sparta. Spartan troops surveilled the helots, keeping them subdued. - the helots were owned by the Spartan state, not by individual Spartans. - ethnically and linguistically, the helots of Messenia and Laconia were Dorian Greeks, like the Spartans. Although it was not uncommon for one group of Greeks to enslave another—often the fate of prisoners of war, for example—no other Greek city ever enslaved so many fellow Greeks, so systematically, as did Sparta. Interestingly, the Dorians as a group evidently maintained more of a tradition than other Greeks of enslaving their conquered populations. We hear of a helot-like agrarian underclass at Argos, at Epidaurus, at Sicyon, and at Syracuse (all of them Dorian cities): Pomeroy page 81, upper middle.  Sparta: the helotai Eventually—after about 640 B.C.—Sparta’s helot system would allow Sparta to create a class of male citizens whose only job was soldiering. In all other Greek cities, most hoplites were small farmers, whose military service might interfere with their earning a livelihood on the farm: For example, the barley harvest occurred around early May, just when an army might otherwise be expected to be on the march. But this complication did not exist at Sparta: The helots did the farming. Spartan armies were always free to be training or to march away for war. Obviously, this fact contributed to Spartan military superiority.  The helotai Yet all this brought with it a strong downside for Sparta: By the 400s B.C. the helots would outnumber their Spartan masters at a ratio of 7-to-1, approximately. Thus the helots were a thing of fear for Sparta. Compare by analogy the warped mentality of the American South circa A.D. 1850, before the Civil War: an agrarian economy, geared to the labour of a huge slave population, which was feared and despised by its masters. See Pomeroy pp. 111, 119, 121 for Sparta’s systematic terrorization and humiliation of the helots. A Spartan shows a Drunken Helot to his Sons by Fernand Sabatté, 1900 A.D. —see Pomeroy page 111  Early Sparta To be continued on Friday, Oct. 11…  CLA1101: Week 4: Sept. 25 and 27 a ProtoCorinthian Olpe ca. 650-640 BCE by the Chigi Painter depicting a Hoplite phalanx. Source: Wikimedia Commons  Week-4 topics 1) Signs of revival in the later Dark Age, continued from Week 3 - 800s B.C.: Euboea leads the way in Greek copycatting of the Phoenicians - the creation of the Greek alphabet, circa 800 B.C. 2) Euboea’s brief pre-eminence: 800s to the early 600s B.C. 3) The Dark Age ends, circa 750 B.C. The “Archaic Age” begins - the poet Homer, circa 750 B.C. - birth of the polis, the Greek “city-state” - in the city-states, rule by aristocracy: late 700s to mid 600s B.C.  Week-4 topics 4) The Greek colonizing movement: circa 800–500s B.C. 5) The transition to hoplite warfare: circa 680–650 B.C. - on hoplite warfare Lecture topic 1: continued: The Greek (and primarily Euboean) copycatting of the Phoenicians: 800s B.C. excursus: The Al Mina trade depot and the creation of the Greek alphabet, circa 800 B.C. The red dot: the Greek-Phoenician trade depot at Al Mina: from 825 B.C. The kingdom of Urartu (Armenia): the host at Al Mina  A quick background-history of the alphabet Before 800 B.C., the technology of alphabetic writing was confined to peoples within the Semitic language family and within the West Semitic subfamily— This would mean (a) the Phoenicians, (b) other Semitic peoples of the Levant such as the Israelites, Moabites, etc., and (c) West Semitic speakers living as an underclass in Egypt. Today we believe that the world’s first alphabet was invented circa 2000 B.C. by the people in category (c): West Semitic speakers in Egypt. This “proto-alphabet” consisted of 27 consonant letters and was invented as an offshoot of Egyptian hieroglyphics. During 2000–900 B.C., this Semitic alphabet spread northward along caravan routes to other Semitic-speakers of the western Near East. By the time the alphabet reached the Phoenicians in what is now Lebanon, it had been refined down to 22 letters. Our earliest extant Phoenician-language inscription comes from 1000 B.C. The alphabet’s journey from Egypt to Al Mina to Greece: 2000–700s B.C.  The Phoenician alphabet had no vowel letters The Phoenicians had inherited the early Semitic alphabet, which used only consonant letters, no vowels. Although the Phoenicians did use vowel-sounds in talking, their system allowed for omitting these in writing. Therefore, the Phoenicians used cndnsd spllngs fr wrtng thr wrds. For technical reasons, this system could work adequately for Semitic languages but not for every language family. The Greeks took over the Phoenician letters, circa 800 B.C., but made one major adjustment: They invented five vowel letters, A, E, I, O, and U, as necessary for the writing of Greek. Today we use the letters A, E, I, O, U because the Greeks invented them. That major detail aside, the original Greek letter-list was very similar to the Phoenician, in letter-shapes, letters’ sequence, and the individual sounds of letters. You need vowel letters for writing Indo-European languages (1) You can often get away with omitting vowel letters if the word is “framed” by consonants. Y cn ftn gt wy wth mttng vwl lttrs f th wrd s “frmd” b cnsnnts. (2) But where the word begins with a vowel or is a vowel, you need to show vowel letters. Indo-European languages have many words in this second category, but Semitic- language words tend to fall mostly into the first category, above. Generally, Semitic languages can be written in a system that omits vowel letters. But in English—and in other Indo-European languages—you need to show vowel letters. Question: How would you write “I am an ass” with no vowel letters? How would you write “I am an ass” with no vowel letters? Answer: m n ss Thus we have the ancient Greeks to thank for enabling us to write “I am an ass.”  Creation of the Greek alphabet: circa 800 B.C. The Greeks’ creation of an alphabet-with-vowel-letters represents one of the most important things to ever happen in world history. By adapting the Semitic alphabet to an Indo-European language, the Greeks (unintentionally, obviously) opened-up alphabetic writing to other languages of Europe, including Latin and, eventually, Old English. The creation of a Greek alphabet brought literacy to Europe. 700 B.C.: in Italy, the Etruscan alphabet is created, copied from the Greek 600 B.C.: in Italy, the Roman alphabet is created, copied from the Etruscan ? 300 B.C.: the runic alphabet of Western Europe is created, copied from the Etruscan by 500 A.D. the Roman alphabet has become the alphabet of the Romance Languages 600 A.D.: the Roman alphabet is adapted to the language Old English 900 A.D.: the Cyrillic alphabet is created, adapted from the Greek Lecture topic #2: In Greece, the region called “Euboea” rises to early pre-eminence  Euboea rises to pre-eminence: 800s–700s B.C. In the “Read for Sept 27” Brightspace module, see the “Greek colonizing era” Word doc, on the rise of Euboea, the city-states Chalcis and Eretria, and the combined Euboean–Phoenician colonies at Al Mina and Pithecusae. background, circa 950 B.C.: The “chief ’s house” at Lefkandi: Pomeroy pp. 47–49 early colonizing by the Euboeans: late 800s to 700s B.C. - Pomeroy page 63 and pp. 76, lower, to 79 - the “Greek colonizing era” Word doc, pp. 1 to 2 top; pp. 3 bottom to 4 top the Greek alphabet, created probably by a Euboean at Al Mina: circa 800 B.C. - Pomeroy pp. 64–65 - in the “Read for Sept 20” Brightspace module, see the “Creation of the Greek alphabet” Word doc: page 2, lower half, on the possible role played by Al Mina On Euboea, the rival city-states Chalcis and Eretria —see also Pomeroy’s inside-front-cover map, left-hand page  Footnote: “Eretria is the new Lefkandi” On maps you’ll see that Eretria is separated from Chalcis by Lefkandi, on the plain of Lelanton. However, the map is misleading, because historically Lefkandi disappeared as a living settlement just as Eretria emerged. The modern theory is that “Eretria was the new Lefkandi”. Explanation: “Lefkandi” is the name of the modern Greek site: We don’t know for sure what the ancient settlement was called. Archaeologically, Lefkandi peaks circa 950 B.C. with the “chief ’s house”: Slide 76 of the Sept. 18–20 slideshow, Pomeroy pp. 47–49. But by 850 B.C. Lefkandi is largely depopulated, then by 700 B.C. abandoned. Meanwhile, around 850 B.C., the city of Eretria rises up from nothing, in full prosperity. It looks as though most of Lefkandi’s population had simply relocated eastward to Eretria. Why did they? The obvious guess is that they’d been getting beaten up by Chalcis, their stronger neighbour. The Lefkandi people moved farther away from Chalcis and rebuilt at the farther edge of the Plain of Lelanton: They conceded to Chalcis a large part of the fertile plain. The site to which they relocated was called “Eretria” by them. So what might have been the earlier site’s name (since the name “Lefkandi” is modern)? Probably it too was called “Eretria”. Probably, the chief ’s-house of 950 B.C. stood in a settlement called Eretria. Topic #3: 750 B.C.: the Dark Age ends. The “Archaic Age” begins See Pomeroy Chapter 3, and the timeline pp. xviii bottom to xx middle. We transition now from the Dark Age to what scholars call the “Archaic Age”. The Archaic Age runs to 480 B.C. The Archaic Age is great fun: a dynamic, innovative time that would set the stage for the more-famous Greek “Classical Age” of 480–323 B.C. It was “Archaic” in comparison to the Classical Age, which followed right after.  The poet Homer: circa 750 B.C. Pomeroy pp. 51–53 …also pp. 54–59, describing “Homeric” Dark Age society See also “The poets Homer and Hesiod” Word doc, in the “Read for Sept. 20” Brightspace module Also, the “Greek mythology in the Dark Age” Word doc, in the “Read for Sept. 20” module As mentioned already, Homer probably lived somewhere in Ionia.  Emergence of the polis, the Greek city-state: 750–700 B.C. - Pomeroy pp. 43 middle, 71, 73–76, and (in the Glossary) page 400 - See also the pp. 393–402 Glossary entries on “aristocracy”, “assembly”, “boulē”, “stasis”, and “synoecism” Some 70 or so Greek cities now emerge in mainland Greece and western Asia Minor as being “nations” unto themselves. This is the government-unit called the polis in Greek: the “city-state”. (Plural: poleis.) They are cities, but each is a self-contained state or nation, with its own army, etc., and with no government-branch above it. As a citizen of the polis of Athens (say), you would enter a foreign country if you journeyed from Athens to the nearby Greek city of Megara. At Megara, you would not be a citizen and would have no civil rights. As the Greek world subsequently enlarged through overseas colonizing (700s–600 B.C.), the total number of city-states would climb toward 1,000. The most-important city-states of mainland Greece See Pomeroy’s maps at the inside-front cover and pp. 107 and 142. The seven most-important mainland Greek city-states would be— Argos Athens Chalcis, on the inshore island of Euboea Corinth Megara Sparta Thebes The earliest to reach prominence was Chalcis [Chalkis], in the 800s B.C.  synoecism /sunoikismos /amalgamation City-states emerge at the end of the late Dark Age, in a process called synoecism [“SIN-ees-ism”]: Pomeroy pp. 73 bottom to 74, 128, and 402. The clunky English word synoecism is just a latinized form of the ancient Greek sunoikismos, meaning “combining the oikoi ”. For the important word oikos, “home” (plural: oikoi), see Pomeroy pp. 54–55 and 398. Basically “synoecism” means an official amalgamation, similar to what Toronto underwent in 1998 or the city of Ottawa in 2001. For ancient Greece, synoecism means that a sizable city takes over the surrounding countryside, including the farming plain and nearby villages. The villages stay in place, but notionally become part of the city. This happened variously by the mid or late 700s B.C. An exact date for the emergence of Greece’s city-states? Question: Did the poleis of mainland Greece spring up all at once? Answer: Nearly so: perhaps within the same 50 years, for most of them. The process finalized with synoecisms that occurred mostly in the 2nd half of the 700s B.C. Pomeroy page 74, upper middle: “Scholarly opinion holds that the unification of the regional territories was a drawn-out development, beginning possibly in the late 800s B.C. and crystallizing between about 750 and 700.”  Synoecism: generally around 750–700 B.C. The polis is “born” as soon as it controls the local farming plain—or perhaps half the plain, as shared with a rival polis. The plain is essential, to keep the city fed. In the plain, the countryside villages now became legally part of the dominant city: The villagers would be citizens of Athens or Corinth, even though they might live 30 or 60 kilometres from the city. On the map of Athenian territory (see the following slide), the villagers at Acharnae, for example, were Athenian citizens. Another example: Probably early in the 700s B.C., Sparta emerged from the synoecism of four villages and then a fifth, in the north part of the plain of Laconia. This consolidation was typical of what was happening throughout mainland Greece at the time. Pomeroy page 106 The city-state of Athens, inside its 1,000-square mile territory called “Attica” The polis, 700s B.C.: government by aristocracy Pomeroy pp. 74–76 and Plate V of the glossy photos (after page 36): on the Dark Age rise of a land-holding aristocratic class. The early city-state was governed as an aristocracy. Our English word “aristocracy” comes from ancient Greek aristokratia, meaning “power to the best people” (that is, the nobles) or perhaps “rule by an elite”. The root kratia means “governance, rule, power”. The prefix aristo- means “the best”. The aristoi were “the best men”. The aristoi were “best” insofar as they were credited with having noble blood—what we today might call “superior genes”. The aristoi as a group claimed descent from the heroes of Greek mythology. Supposedly, this innate advantage qualified them to rule.  Government by aristocracy: 700s B.C. Note: Some textbooks and profs prefer to use the word “elite” to describe the ruling class in an aristocracy-system. To say “elite” in CLA1101 is perfectly acceptable, but we also accept the words “nobles”, “nobility”, “aristocrats”, aristoi, etc.  Aristokratia = a monopoly on power In an aristokratia, only individual aristoi could— (i) hold seats on the ruling council (ii) hold executive offices such as “treasurer” or “war leader” (iii) act as courtroom judges The only voting in government or politics was done by these people alone, around a table. The commoners in the city-state had no vote. The aristoi in the Greek city-state You can imagine the city-state of 700 B.C. as in the diagram at left. Each width-band = a different socio-economic class of male citizens. The diagram omits slaves and all women. The black peak = those who hold all the political power: that is, the aristoi, the “noble” families: 20 percent or less of the city’s families. Under an aristokratia, only this group could govern. In the middle is the middle class: 50 percent, or perhaps slightly more, of the population. At bottom is the lowest-income class of citizens: the poor. By modern estimate, they constituted 30 percent, or slightly less, of the city male-citizen population. So who were these aristocrats who ran the city?  The origins of Greece’s aristocracy This ruling class—across all Greek cities by 700 B.C.—seems to have emerged out of the Dark Age, circa 1100–800 B.C. The aristocrats developed from what had been the primitive chiefs (Greek: basileis) in the local villages, and the chiefs’ advisors and supporters. See Pomeroy’s Glossary, page 393, for the important word basileus and its plural form, basileis. The word’s several possible meanings include “king”, “chief ”, and “courtroom judge”. See Pomeroy pp. 54–57 for a “snapshot” of the government of the Dark Age chiefs.  The aristoi: wealth from land ownership The wealth of the aristoi came from hereditary ownership of broad tracts of land, including perhaps whole villages. The land brought wealth not mainly from the owner’s personal farming but rather from rents. Most of a nobleman’s land wouldn’t be farmed by him or his household, but would be leased to tenant farmers. The tenants might live in cabins on the owner’s property and would have rights to farm specific portions of land. But the tenants didn’t own this land.  Wealth from land ownership The rents received by landlords were famously lucrative: A tenant farmer typically paid a rent of one-third of his grain harvest—there being no cash money or coins in the 700s– 600s B.C. So the landlord’s income came in the form of grain, not coins. The tenant would keep two-thirds of his grain harvest. Of this, he would allocate one of the thirds to plant (next autumn), and the last third for his family to make bread or porridge—that is, to live on. There would be little or nothing left over, to sell. The landlord, meanwhile, scarcely lifted a finger to earn this one-third share. The landlord would have much to sell. It was easy to make profit. In the 800s to mid 700s B.C., accumulated wealth came nearly all from land ownership of this sort. Land was the traditional way to be rich. And big-land-ownership was the privileged monopoly of the nobles. Land-ownership = surplus grain = wealth. Below, ceramic-model “grain silos” from an Athenian noblewoman’s tomb, circa 850 B.C. Plate V in Pomeroy (after page 36)  A collection of aristocratic families = a “clan” At some cities, all the aristoi families belonged to a single clan of blood- relatives: Pomeroy pp. 87 bottom to 88 top. Our English word “clan” comes from Scottish Gaelic and means “a defined group of families”. The concept works equally well for ancient Greek aristocracy. The Greek word for “clan” was genos. Pomeroy page 87 bottom, and page 395 in the Glossary.  The aristoi: wealth and a “superior” bloodline Please remember: The wealth of the aristocrats was only half the story. More important was the criterion of “noble blood”. An ancient Greek noble clan would justify its power-monopoly by claiming descent from a hero of Greek myth. For example, at the city Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, the ruling clan was the Penthilids (Penthilidai, “descendants of Penthilus”). Their supposed ancestor Penthilus was a mythical hero, a son of the hero Orestes. In myth, Penthilus had led colonists from mainland Greece to Lesbos in the generation after the Trojan War. So “Our ancestors were the pioneers on Lesbos. Yours weren’t.”  Again: The Dorian “sons of Heracles” See Slide 68 of the Sept. 18–20 lecture slideshow, and Pomeroy page 39, lower part. In Dorian-Greek cities, the aristocrats typically claimed descent from the mythical hero Heracles—or more specifically from his sons. In myth, Heracles begets many children: the Heraklidai, the “descendants of Heracles”. And supposedly it was Heracles’ sons who had led the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese, back in the 1000s B.C. This Heracles-connection was pure propaganda, concocted by Dorian cities like Argos, Corinth, and Sparta, probably sometime before the 700s B.C. As said already, this propaganda was meant to justify the Dorians’ possession of much of the Peloponnese (since there remained in Greece a folk-memory that the Dorians were invader-newcomers). The fictional Heracles-connection allowed the Dorians to claim that their invasion had simply been to “take back” the Peloponnese, after they previously had been associated with it.  What better ancestor than Heracles? Secondly, in every Dorian city, the “sons of Heracles” myth worked to support the aristoi in their claim to the privilege to rule. What better ancestor than Heracles, for your noble family? For example, at Corinth the ruling clan was called the Bacchiads (Bacchiadai in Greek): the “descendants of Bacchis”. This Bacchis was imagined as a son or grandson etc. of Heracles. (He wasn’t the wine-god, Bacchus.)  The aristocrats’ precaution of endogamy Question: Could a commoner perhaps “join the club” by marrying into the family? Answer: No. The aristocrats always safeguarded their monopoly. In fact, the Greek nobility sought to preserve “blood purity” through endogamy— meaning “marriage only within the clan”: You would marry your second cousin or similar. The Bacchiads of Corinth were endogamous (as the historian Herodotus mentions). Modern historians believe that endogamy was the rule for most Greek aristocratic clans, 800s–600s B.C. Overall, please keep in mind this “privilege of noble blood” in defining aristocracy. Yes, aristoi tended to be wealthy, but wealth itself could not make you an aristos. You had to be born to it.  How many families = the aristoi in a city-state? Question: In any single city-state, whether the ruling families all belonged to one aristocratic clan or whether there were two or three clans, about how many families are we talking about? Note: This would mean extended families, going back to the grandparents or great- grandparents. Answer: One clue comes from the Dorian-Greek city of Locri (Greek: Lokroi Epizephuroi ) in south Italy. Locri in the 600s B.C. was governed as an aristocracy. The ruling class was called “the Hundred Houses”—that is the hundred families. These families all claimed descent from the city’s original settlers (who had come from the region called Locris, in central Greece). So let’s use the number 100 as an upper-end estimate, relevant to a large, prosperous city-state: 100 aristocratic families, arranged into one or more aristocratic clans.  Were all the families “equal”? Definitely not. Instead, there evidently was a distinct “pecking order”, with the richest and largest families at the top, and probably with one or two of the top families striving to dominate the others. One of several flaws in rule by aristokratia was this wasteful tradition of competition—and even violent feuding—between certain aristocratic families in a city-state, in the 600s B.C. especially. See Pomeroy page 401, bottom left, for the important Greek word stasis, meaning “political violence”, “political street-fighting”. In ancient Greek history, stasis first emerges as street-fighting between aristocratic factions (and their followers) in the 600s B.C. or earlier.  Hallmarks of the aristoi: land and horses The names of Greek aristocratic clans—if not announcing their mythical ancestors—might typically advertise land ownership or horse ownership. at Samos, the ruling clan was called the geomoroi, “those who share the land” at Chalcis, the hippobotai, “horse owners” at Eretria, the hippeis, “horsemen” In ancient Greece, you had to be rich to own horses. At Athens, the ruling clan was called the eupatridai, “sons of noble fathers” or “those well born”. - The Greek prefix eu- means “noble” or “good”—that is, “good” with a right-wing political value. Our modern boy’s name Eugene (Greek: “nobly born”: eu-genos) comes from this aristocratic tradition. excursus: Horse breeding in ancient Greece  Some “horse” names from Greek history In ancient Greece, a person’s name containing hipp- or hippo- (“horse”) was meant to announce the person’s aristocratic blood. For example— Hippocrates (“horse power”): a pioneering doctor and medical writer from the Dorian-Greek island of Cos: 400s B.C. Hippias (“like a horse”—that is, “noble”): dictator at Athens: 500s B.C. Xanthippus (“yellow horse”): Athenian general and politician, father of the statesman Pericles: early 400s B.C. Hippodamus (“tamer of horses”): a famous architect and town planner, born at Miletus: 400s B.C. Philip (Philippos, “horse lover”): king of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great: 300s B.C.  Three organs of aristocratic rule the council: the boulē the executives [or officials or office-holders or magistrates] the assembly of all citizens: the ekklēsia - For the boulē, see Pomeroy pp. 57, 76, and 393 - For the officials, Pomeroy pp. 75 bottom and 76 top, also page 129 about Athens - For the ekklēsia, see Pomeroy’s references to the citizens’ “assembly” at pp. 57, 129, and 393  The boulē in a polis under aristocracy The Greek word for “council” was boulē. Please remember it. At the start, circa 700 B.C., the council ruled the city-state. The cities weren’t ruled by kings anymore (although a few cities, like Sparta, did retain titular kings). The council might consist of 20–100 men (“councillors”), sitting around a big table perhaps, in a meeting chamber. These men were representative members of the city’s ruling families. They were not elected to the council by a vote of the people, but instead perhaps by a vote among the ruling families or by a system of rotation. As said already, only the aristoi were eligible to sit on the council. The councillors deliberated among themselves and voted around the table, to pass laws for the city and make executive decisions: on infrastructure, taxation, whether to make war, the penalty for accidental homicide, etc. Once a week (let’s say), they sat as courtroom judges, serving as the Supreme Court of the city-state.  Compare our Ottawa city council In Ottawa today, the city is governed by a city council of 25 elected officials: 24 ward councillors, plus the mayor. The council deliberates and votes, to make decisions and pass local laws for the city. The mayor acts as chairman of the council meetings. Although the mayor may have more prestige than the ward councillors, the mayor has only one vote among 25, equal weight with everyone else. All the above factors, including a number like 25, resemble the boulē of an ancient Greek city- state under an aristocracy. Of course, Ottawa’s city council has been elected by public vote. Not so the ancient aristocratic council. And meanwhile in Ottawa, the nation of Canada is governed through (i) Parliament, (ii) the Prime Minister, and (iii) the Supreme Court. But in Greece of 700 B.C., all supreme decision- making was packed into the council of every single polis. Greece had no federal Parliament, etc. Instead, a city-state’s council was the top tier of government, x 70 for 70 city-states.  The ekklēsia The word ekklēsia literally means a “calling out”. That is, the mass of the city’s citizens, rich and poor together, were called out from their homes in town and in the countryside, to attend an assembly. The ekklēsia was the assembly of all the city’s male citizens. Under aristocratic rule, the ekklēsia would have resembled your old high-school assembly: The mass of students congregates, and the school principal and maybe a couple of teachers address the assembly. The principal and teachers tell the students what’s-what, and the students listen. Maybe the students get to ask clarifying questions, but they don’t vote on what the principal has said. And they are not encouraged to question the principal’s judgment. That’s how it worked under an aristokratia: The citizens’ assembly was passive. Slide 28 again: Rule by aristocracy in a Greek city-state You can imagine the city-state of 700 B.C. as in the diagram at left. Each width-band = a different socio-economic class of male citizens. The diagram omits slaves and all women. The black peak = those who hold all the political power: that is, the aristoi, the “noble” families: 20 percent or less of the city’s families. Under an aristokratia, only this group could govern. In the middle is the middle class: 50 percent, or perhaps slightly more, of the population. At bottom is the lowest-income class of citizens: the poor. By modern estimate, they constituted 30 percent, or slightly less, of the city male-citizen population.  Students: keep your eye on the ekklēsia Looking ahead: In the 600s B.C. the political facts will start to change: Throughout Greece, the aristocrats will lose their monopoly on power. On the pyramid diagram (= the prior slide), the black “power triangle” will enlarge downward to past half-way, bringing political power to the middle class. Then, in the Athenian democracy of the 500s–400s B.C., the black shading will reach all the way down, to the bottom of the pyramid: Political power will extend to the entire dēmos, “the people”, including the citizen poor. And the organ of this democratic government will be the ekklēsia. Far from being passive any longer, the ekklēsia will rule, in a Greek democracy.  Footnote: the word ekklēsia The Greek word ekklēsia would later go into Latin as ecclesia, eventually to mean a Christian congregation or church building. From Latin, it survives in modern French église and Spanish iglesia. It survives also in English words like “ecclesiastical,” meaning some aspect of churchgoing or church organization. In the modern Greek language, ekklēsia means a church. Topic #4 The Greek colonizing movement: 800s–500s B.C. See Pomeroy pp. 63 and 76–79, with the page 77 map. Also the page 195 map of Sicily and the book’s inside-back-cover map In the Brightspace module “Readings due for Sept 27”— - see the Word doc “The Greek colonizing era: 800s to 500s B.C.” - see the pdf “The god Apollo’s shrine at Delphi” Topic #5 The transition to hoplite warfare: circa 680–650 B.C. - See Pomeroy pp. 85–87 and 397, top right, and Plate VI (after page 36). - See the “Greek land warfare” pdf in the “Readings due for Sept. 27” Brightspace module.  The Greeks switch to hoplite warfare Overview The years approximately 680–650 B.C. saw a large-scale change in military tactics and equipment in ancient Greece, creating a more efficient and bigger- scale system of infantry warfare—specifically, massed heavy infantry. With the change, the city’s defence was being entrusted to large numbers of middle-income-class male citizens, where this had not been the case before. Eventually, in the 2nd half of the 600s B.C., this military change would bring dramatic political results in the Greek city-states: the rise of the Greek “tyrants”. (We will discuss, in class next week.) Prologue: copycatting the Assyrians: circa 715–670 B.C.  Prologue: copycatting the Assyrians During the 700s B.C., Assyria was a powerful non-Greek kingdom, a fearsome military power, based on the Tigris River in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). In the later 700s, the Assyrians invaded into eastern Asia Minor, where they were opposed by various local kingdoms. Neither side here was Greek. However, at least one Asia Minor kingdom—Urartu, based in what is now Armenia—was employing Greek mercenary soldiers (as we know from certain ancient records). Presumably, these Greeks fought against the Assyrians. But more importantly— These military Greeks had a chance to observe first-hand the Assyrian tactic of using concentrated heavy infantry: soldiers with bronze helmets and breastplates, fighting in dense formations. We don’t know exactly what happened next, for about 45 years: circa 715–670 B.C. We can guess that the Greeks took home to their city-states of Greece the concept of fielding large numbers of heavy infantry (or “armoured” infantry)—where previously the heavy infantry in Greek armies had been few in number, confined to a few aristocratic champions. Dark Age “Homeric” infantry tactics: circa 1000–680 B.C. The big change: enrolling the middle class as heavy infantry The older, aristocratic-based, less-organized mode of battle is described briefly in the “Greek land warfare” pdf in the “Read for Sept 27” Brightspace module: the paragraphs on “Mycenaean” and “post-Mycenaean” warfare. This old tactic—individual, armoured aristocrats, engaged in haphazard, single duels—is probably what is mirrored in battle- descriptions in Homer’s war-epic, the Iliad, from 750 B.C. See also Pomeroy pp. 37–39. Different from Homeric duelling was the Assyrian model, which the Greeks now copied and adapted. This change to “hoplite” tactics in Greece required recruiting and militarizing much of the male middle class to serve as armoured soldiers. Each Greek city- state had to substantially enlarge its heavy-infantry component, and train the men in a new set of battlefield tactics. The change would have taken about a generation of time—30 years or at least 20—so as to train the recruits in new equipment and new tactics. Also, each man (or his family) had to supply his own armour, which must have taken years to organize initially. Battle of Hysiae: 669 B.C.  Battle of Hysiae: 669 B.C. Among modern scholars, hoplite warfare is thought to emerge into view in 669 B.C. at the Battle of Hysiae, fought between Sparta and Argos, as mentioned by the later Greek writer Pausanias. Our Pomeroy book mentions briefly on page 101, toward the bottom. - the battle was a total victory for Argos. But this would be nearly the last Spartan defeat for the next 300 years. - find Hysiae on the page 107 map in Pomeroy. It was a town or village in the territory of Argos. - Hysiae sits just a few miles southwest of Argos, which must mean that the Spartans were the invaders, marching up from the south, when they got beaten. - according to the best modern interpretation, the army of Argos was using new hoplite tactics, while the Spartans were still using the disorganized, haphazard mode of “aristocratic” warfare from earlier centuries. Battle of Hysiae: 669 B.C. Greek cities embrace hoplite tactics: 669–650 B.C. Argos’ dramatic victory apparently had a “Dreadnought effect” or “Arms Race effect” throughout the Greek world. Suddenly, for every Greek city that wanted to defend itself, a hoplite army—with its required massive alterations in equipment, organization, training program, etc.—became a necessity. At some Greek cities besides Argos, these changes probably already were underway before 669 B.C. Corinth and Chalcis may have been two cities that had already gotten a start on hoplite reorganization.  Hoplite tactics Hoplites were massed heavy infantry. Hoplite warfare relied on organized massing to create successive “walls” of soldiers, moving forward in a nearly- shoulder-to-shoulder packed formation called a phalanx (Greek: phalanx). If you didn’t want to translate phalanx as “phalanx”, a good translation would be “battle rows” or “battle ranks”. The translation “battle line” is acceptable so long as we understand that it wasn’t just a single line or row: The phalanx was organized waves of men. Two phalanxes, closing in orderly rows  The hoplite phalanx The hoplite phalanx might typically comprise six-to-eight rows, at several hundred soldiers per row. For example, the Athenian historian Thucydides, describing the 418 B.C. Battle of Mantinea in the Peloponnesian War, reports about 450 men per row, eight rows deep (= 3,600 hoplites on each side at that battle). - another word for “row” is “rank”: = a line-across of soldiers, marching or fighting side-by-side. Footnote: For an introduction to the masterly Athenian historian Thucydides, writing in the latter 400s B.C., see Pomeroy pp. 211 bottom to 213.  The name “hoplite”: from the shield The Greek word hoplitēs meant “man with a hoplon ”. The soldier was named for his new-style shield, the hoplon. The hoplon had an innovative shape, different from prior Greek shields’ shapes. Specifically— - the hoplon was round, big, and heavy: about three feet across, about 16 pounds. - unlike earlier shield designs, the cumbersome hoplon was bigger than needed for protection of just one soldier: It was designed to protect partly the comrade on the soldier’s left-hand side, as well. - in tight formation, each hoplite enjoyed one-half frontal protection (left-hand side) from his own shield and one-half protection from his comrade’s shield on the right. The hoplites were thus incentivized to stay close together laterally, to receive shield- protection.  The hoplon shield The hoplon shield was made of wood: carved or piece-fitted, convex on the outer side, concave on the inner side, and faced in bronze on the outer side. The inner side had a bronze ring in the middle and a leather strap at the inside far end, to fit to the man’s left forearm-and-hand. The hoplon shield: made of wood, carved or piece-fitted, convex on the outer side, concave on the inner side, and faced in bronze on the outer side. Right- hand image: The inner side had a bronze ring in the middle and a leather strap at the inside far end, to fasten to the man’s left forearm-and-hand.  Other hoplite armour Supplementing the hoplite’s defence was bronze body-armour: helmet, breastplate, and greaves (= shin guards). The hoplite’s offensive weapons were a six-to-eight-foot-long spear for jabbing (not throwing) and an iron sword, sheathed at the hip. The sword was meant for emergency use, after the spear was broken or lost. Typically the sword was designed with a slashing edge, like a cutlass or sabre. In all, the hoplite carried about 70 pounds.  Hoplites: the upper and middle classes Each hoplite supplied his own armour: He had purchased it, or it was a family heirloom. Thus the hoplite-contingent of a city’s army would by definition be confined to the upper- and middle-income classes, wherein individual men could afford to equip themselves with armour. As said already, the social innovation in hoplite warfare was to include men of the middle class as armoured infantry. By contrast, back in the 700s B.C., the aristoi alone would have been wearing armour. Therefore the average hoplite army represented a far larger heavy-infantry component than cities’ armies had previously contained, in the 700s B.C. A far larger heavy-infantry component than before Since the aristocratic families constituted at most 20 percent of the city’s population, and the middle class constituted probably 50 percent, it’s obvious that hoplite warfare put a greater number of heavy infantry onto a battlefield than did the old aristocratic fighting-style. With aristocrats too fighting as hoplites, the city’s heavy infantry would have represented perhaps 60 percent of the city’s fighting-age male citizenry. - that is, 20 + 50 percent = 70 percent, minus perhaps 10 percent. This “minus” portion would be the middle class’s lowest-income tier, which could not afford to buy hoplite armour.  The size of a city-state’s hoplite contingent The size of city-states’ armies could vary, obviously. For a city’s hoplite contingent, a rough generality might be 3,000–6,000. As mentioned above at Slide 64, Thucydides for the Battle of Mantinea reports about 3,600 hoplites per side. Other troops—cavalry and light infantry—would have rounded-up the city’s army’s numbers. If a major Greek city-state of this era numbered 5,000 citizen families, with (say) an average of two males of fighting age per household, then 60 percent of that group would yield a maximum hoplite contingent of perhaps 6,000 men. These rough calculations fit with the above estimate of 6,000 for the high end of documented hoplite armies. The hoplite numbers are not huge, because city-states’ populations were not huge: maybe 30,000–40,000 citizens (male and female, young and old, rich and poor) at a major city like Corinth. That figure omits slaves and foreign residents.  The size of the hoplite contingent The two biggest hoplite city-armies that we hear of— The historian Herodotus reports 10,000 Spartan hoplites at the Battle of Plataea in 479 B.C. during the Persian Wars. Thucydides mentions 16,000 Athenian hoplites on campaign in 431 B.C. during the Peloponnesian War. However, Athens by then had a uniquely big population: 100,000 citizens-plus-resident-foreigners. Thucydides mentions that resident foreigners supplied slightly under one-fifth of those 16,000.  Hoplite warfare: 600s–300s B.C. This topic to be concluded on Wednesday, Oct. 2… CLA1101: Week 3: Sept. 18 and 21  Lecture topics for Week 3 1) continued: The Mycenaean Civilization of mainland Greece: 1600–1200 B.C. - the Mycenaean heyday: 1400–1200 B.C. - the Mycenaeans’ sudden, violent downfall: 1200 B.C. 2) overview: The “Dark Age” of Greece: circa 1200–750 B.C. - the Dark Age’s first 150 years - the Dark Age “bottoms out” circa 1050 B.C. 3) The three main Greek ethnic-dialect groups: arising by 1050 B.C.  Week-3 topics, continued 4) The (non-Greek) Phoenicians of Lebanon - their formative influence on the Greeks, circa 950–600 B.C. 5) Signs of revival in the later Dark Age in Greece - the large island of Euboea, in east-central Greece - on Euboea, the “chief ’s house” at Lefkandi: 950 B.C - at Athens, the “Geometric” style of pottery: 900–700 B.C - Euboea leads the way in Greek copycatting of the Phoenicians —the creation of the Greek alphabet, circa 800 B.C. 6) Euboea’s brief pre-eminence: 800s to the early 600s B.C. Lecture topic #1: The Mycenaean Civilization, continued The Mycenaean Civilization timeline: 1600–1400 B.C. 1600 B.C.: shaft graves at Mycenae 1500 B.C.: tholos tombs at Mycenae 1490 B.C.: the Greeks invade and conquer Minoan Crete: This is the end of Minoan Civilization. But the Minoan people evidently are not exterminated by the conquerors. 1490–1400 B.C.: the Mycenaeans copycat Minoan technologies: palace architecture, “palace economy” (Pomeroy pp. 23, 34–35), bronze-making, writing, long-range seafaring, visual arts, and aspects of religion. Milestone 1490 B.C.: the Mycenaeans conquer Minoan Crete Milestone 1490 B.C.: the Mycenaeans conquer Minoan Crete Pomeroy pp. 26 bottom to 27 top: “The [Mycenaean] Greeks…adopted wholesale the model of the [Minoan] state, right down to the writing system.” This copycatting occurred around 1490–1400 B.C. By 1400 B.C., the Mycenaeans were putting their new lessons to work… Mycenaean Civilization timeline, continued: 1400–1200 B.C. 1400–1250 B.C.: the zenith of Mycenaean Civilization - palace-building at Mycenae, Pylos, Thebes, Iolcus, Athens, elsewhere - 15 or so “Mycenaean” kingdoms operating separately? The most powerful one is Mycenae. Others include Pylos, Thebes, and Athens - the Mycenaeans send expeditions overseas to Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Sicily: for trade, piracy, organized warfare, and/or colonizing 1250 B.C.: decline. Archaeological signs of stress at the city of Mycenae 1200 B.C.: wholesale destruction. The sudden, violent, mysterious end of Mycenaean Civilization About 15 (?) separate Mycenaean kingdoms by the 1200s B.C. See also the map at Pomeroy page 31 For the Mycenaeans, “kingdoms”, not “city-states” Student’s question: “What about the ‘city-states’ (poleis) that we heard about in our Week-1 lecture? How do they fit into the Mycenaean story?” Answer: They don’t. The city-states of Greece don’t have relevance to the Mycenaeans. Historically, the city-states won’t emerge until the 700s B.C., long after the Mycenaean era (1600–1200 B.C.). As said already, the Mycenaean organization was by kingdoms: in a relatively small number, around 15. Each kingdom would have had a capital city, where the king’s palace was, plus maybe a few secondary cities, plus many villages. But Greece as yet contained no city-states. Mycenaean overseas adventuring: 1400–1250 B.C. Expeditions for trade, plunder, and (probably) colonizing: to Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Sicily Cyprus: rich in copper ore and strategically located  Cyprus: rich in copper ore Fun fact: Our English word “copper” actually derives from the name “Cyprus”. In ancient Greek, Cyprus was Kupros, pronounced “CUP-ros”. When the Romans entered the scene by the 200s B.C., they adopted the Greek name into their Latin language, spelling it as Cyprus (pronounced “cup-rus” or “kip-rus”). The metal copper in Latin became known as Cyprium aes, “the Cypriot metal”, due to its abundance as ore on Cyprus. The Latin words would have been pronounced something like “cup-rium ice”. In the early Middle Ages, Old English and other Germanic languages imitated the Latin, to supply their words for copper. But by 1250 B.C., signs of stress for the Mycenaeans Archaeology has traced diminishing amounts of treasure in the royal tombs at Mycenae that were built after about 1250 B.C. In other words, the Mycenaeans were running out of money and supplies. Their long-range trade routes and avenues of war-and- plunder were starting to dry up. Firstly, why was this happening? Secondly, why did it prove fatal?  Overreliance on long-distance supply Pomeroy pp. 39–40 In the Brightspace module “Readings due for Sept 6”, see the Word doc “The labels ‘Stone Age’ and ‘Bronze Age’”: page 3: copper + tin = bronze. The Mycenaean kings relied on production of bronze, to keep their armies strong. If no bronze, then no strong military, and no secure rule for the king. Among other vital imports, supplies of tin suddenly weren’t reaching the Mycenaean kingdoms. Tin was the “weak link”: Tin ore didn’t much exist in the Mediterranean. Tin needed to be brought in, from what are now England or Afghanistan. These were long sea-and-land routes, requiring middlemen, infrastructure, security forces, etc. By 1250 B.C., tribes/bandits/pirates on the periphery were moving against the far-flung trade routes. This created problems for all the Bronze Age kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean. The tin route: westward from Afghanistan on the “Silk Road” Then west by ship on the Black Sea, and through the Bosporus and Hellespont channels, into the Aegean Sea. The bottleneck of the Hellespont  The beginning of the end: latter 1200s B.C. See Pomeroy page 40: By about 1240 B.C., do supply problems for various Mycenaean kings bring on social unrest in the kingdoms? Revolts against the kings? And/or do the Mycenaean kingdoms start to attack each other, for plunder of supplies, circa 1240–1210 B.C.? A real-life Seven Against Thebes? Revolts within the kingdoms or warfare of kingdom-against-kingdom would have served to weaken the Greeks against any eventual attack from outside. Circa 1220 B.C. a real-life Trojan War? See Pomeroy page 52, lower middle; page 39, lower middle; and page 31, bottom. Behind the famous myth: a real war, with primitive economic causes? The Seven against Thebes: a stage tragedy of 467 B.C. by Aeschylus —could the myth be based on real-life war, Mycenae-versus-Thebes, in the 1200s? The Seven against Thebes: ? Mycenae attacks Thebes twice, circa 1240–1210 B.C. The non-Greek city of Troy: just outside the Hellespont The fall of Mycenaean Civilization: 1200 B.C.  The Mycenaeans’ violent end: 1200 B.C. See above, Slide 15, bottom of slide: “By 1250 B.C. tribes/bandits/pirates on the periphery were moving against the trade routes.” By 1200 B.C., these violent tribes/raiders were closing-in directly on Mycenaean Greece. Circa 1200 B.C. the grand Hittite kingdom in Asia Minor is destroyed by attack. See Pomeroy page 39 middle. Circa 1200 B.C. attackers destroy a major Canaanite city called Ugarit, on the Syrian coast. Also there are attacks against Cyprus, nearby to Ugarit. Circa 1200 B.C. all major Mycenaean cities are attacked, nearly simultaneously. Most are destroyed immediately, although the fortresses of Mycenae and Tiryns hold out until about 1100 B.C. The only city not destroyed is Athens. We are not sure why Athens was spared. The attackers evidently arrive and then depart by sea, like the Vikings of a later era. Circa 1200 B.C., destruction all around the eastern Mediterranean  The Mycenaeans’ violent end: 1200–1100 B.C. This is the end of Mycenaean Civilization. However, it is not the end of the Greeks. The Greeks do not get exterminated. Various Greek populations take refuge away from the wrecked Mycenaean cities—for example, in the remote mountains of Arcadia, in the central Peloponnese (where modern language-analysis of ancient Greek has revealed a continuity with Mycenaean-era Greek). So the survivors live on, in scattered settlements of the countryside. These humble villages possess little to attract further raids by outsiders.  Who were the attackers? Clues come from the mighty kingdom of Egypt. Egypt was attacked four times, circa 1207–1177 B.C. The Egyptians repulsed the attacks. Today we are lucky to have a lengthy rock-carved inscription at Luxor, Egypt, wherein Pharaoh Ramses III celebrates his victory. Famously, the inscription calls the attackers the “Sea Peoples”. The inscription describes the Sea Peoples as “a confederation” of different ethnicities: from Libya and other parts of the eastern Mediterranean, from the Asia Minor coast, and (confusingly) from Greece itself. See also Pomeroy page 39 middle. The Medinet Habu inscription at Luxor, from 1177 B.C. —recording Pharaoh Ramses III’s repulse of the Sea Peoples  The Medinet Habu inscription: 1177 B.C. The inscription calls the Sea Peoples a “confederation” of “nations” or ethnicities who arose from islands in the eastern Mediterranean and descended on Egypt after destroying neighbouring kingdoms: No land could withstand their attacks, not Hatti [= the Hittites], Qode, Carchemish [in Syria], Arzawa [= southwest Asia Minor ], Alashiya [= Cyprus], or others… At Amor [= coastal Syria, including Ugarit ] they desolated the land and people… They came forth toward Egypt… Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjekru, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Washosh, nations united. They laid hands upon lands as far as the circuit of the Earth, their hearts full of confidence: “Our ambitions will succeed!” The Mycenaean downfall: dispossessed Mycenaeans among the Sea Peoples? The last days of Pylos (lower left): 1200 B.C.  The last days of Pylos: 1200 B.C. See Pomeroy pp. 33–34 for the Linear B trove discovered at Pylos. One of the destroyed sites was Pylos (Greek: Pulos, “the gate”), in the southwest Peloponnese. When the Pylos palace burned down, clay tablets of Linear B (over a thousand) got inadvertently baked and were preserved under the collapsed palace until discovered in 1939 A.D. Today, the Pylos writings give a brief, incomplete record of the palace’s last days before