52. Cf. 'the deadly activity that then continued in the human slaughter of battle,' Burkert, op. cit. 1983:66.
53. Henrichs, op. cit., 215–16. Two minor points: first, Henrichs says that 'It is well known that sphagia required the wholesale slaughter of animals which took place on the battlefield….' (Cf. Burkert op. cit., 66 'slaughtered in great numbers as the enemy looked on.') 'Wholesale' only if each victim failed to produce the right signs, and exposure to the enemy rarely permitted prolonged sacrifice and consultation. The number of victims as such is not part of the aim or the effect of the sacrifice. Second, although the sacrifice did mark the beginning of battle the language used of these rites does not, to my knowledge, employ the compounds of archesthai, 'to begin,' common elsewhere in sacrificial terminology. Cf. Rudhardt op. cit., 219–20.
54. Alfred Loisy, Essai historique sur le sacrifice (Paris, 1920) 259–60, criticized by Lonis 1979:104, for some misconceptions of Greek practice.
55. Cf. the discussion of a much more complex ritual in Jonathan Z.Smith's essay, 'The Bare Facts of Ritual,' in his Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago, 1982) 53–65. On the relation of magic to ritual (and of both to scientific thought), see S.J.Tambiah, The form and meaning of magical acts: a point of view,' in William A.Lessa and Evon Z.Vogt, eds, Reader in Comparative Religion. An Anthropological Approach (New York, 4th edn 1979), especially 358–62.
* * *
9
HOPLITES AND THE GODS:
The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour
A.H.Jackson
There could be few clearer proofs of victory than the arms and armour taken from the dead comrades of the routed enemy by the triumphant conqueror, nor any more abject confession of defeat than the enemy's request to be allowed to recover the corpses of those he had deserted in his flight. Proud and grateful thank-offerings made by victors to the gods who had helped them, from the best spoils to hand, are known from Homer to Hellenistic times as the studies of Rouse, Pritchett, and Lonis among others have shown.1
This chapter tries to relate a very important class of such dedications, collective ones made publicly on behalf of the whole community or army, to the prime form of combat between Greek states in Archaic and Classical times: hoplite battle, most recently and convincingly analysed by Hanson.2 It is here argued that a city's existing dedications of armour, itself prestigious, would have developed and maintained its hoplites' pride and confidence and would, with such pre-battle ceremonies as sacrifices and vows of fresh spoils and other thank-offerings, have helped to increase their courage and discipline. Greatly valued then, old and new dedications would be on display at a city's temples for many years. Offerings would often be made at panhellenic sanctuaries as well, both to please the gods and to impress other Greeks, though at Olympia and some other shrines the spoils of Greeks seem to have been offered more and more rarely from the fifth century. This, it is argued, was not coincidence or due to changes in fashions and types of offering, but reflected growing unease at what was coming to seem brutal and out of place in panhellenic shrines, namely the commemoration of victories over fellow Greeks by means of armour and weapons stripped from the corpses of the slain.
CAPTURED ARMOUR AND WEAPONS AS VOTIVE OFFERINGS
Though arms and armour were never the only form that a thank-offering for victory might take, their own value and their associations with martial glory explain why they were often so used.
Their value in money explains why hoplites were normally drawn from the better-off. In Athens in the late sixth century a panoply could cost at least thirty drachmas. That was about what six fine oxen fit for sacrifice had cost in Solon's time and so probably was still a substantial sum (Meiggs and Lewis 14; Plut. Sol. 23.3). In fourth-century Thasos, panoplies fit for the state to honour its war orphans (so presumably of good quality) cost 300 drachmas, for which valuable assets like skilled slaves could be bought (Dem. 27.9).3 Caricaturing arms merchants' greed, Aristophanes makes one ask 1,000 drachmas for a bronze cuirass (Ar. Pax 1210–64). From this exaggeration we might conclude that such equipment could cost several hundred drachmas, and Xenophon shows that some Athenians in his time did not even care if a cuirass fitted them properly, never mind what it cost, as long as it was decorated and gilded to their satisfaction (Xen. Mem. 3.10.9–15).
For armour, although usually businesslike in design, was almost always impressive to look at. Alcaeus' poem on the splendour of a great hall decked with armour shows how its fine appearance delighted Greeks of his time.4 The gods too were thought to enjoy such spectacles, as shown by the Pythia's wistful tone in rejecting some fine Persian spoils (Paus. 10.14.5). It was to Delphi that Cnossos and Tylissos agreed to send the finest spoils they hoped to take, reserving the rest for the temple of Ares at Cnossos (Meiggs and Lewis 42 B lines 9–11). It is not surprising that some of the finest Greek armour known comes from sanctuary sites, notably Olympia.5 Sometimes, to emphasize the choice quality of their gift, donors use the term akrothinion, literally 'the top of the heap', or 'the pick of the crop'.6 No dedicator would dare to offer less than the gods' due, for quite apart from the mockery of men, the displeasure of heaven was not to be risked (Hdt. 8.122; Soph. Aj. 172–81).
Apart from their cost and splendid appearance, arms and armour were valued for themselves. Cretans and Thebans took great pride in gifts of fine arms and armour, and Demetrius the Besieger's gift of 12,000 panoplies to Athens was a gesture of respect among other things (Strab. 10.4.16; Plut. Mor. 761 B; Plut. Demetr. 17). The
panoplies that Athens' allies had to contribute at the Great Panathenaea illustrate the prestige they could enjoy (Meiggs and Lewis 69 line 57), as do Thasos' gifts to war orphans and Athens' to her ephebes (Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.4).
Armour and weapons won on the field of battle were even more honorific because victory and excellence in war were always admired. The right of Spartans who won Olympic victories to serve by their king in battle is one example of this (Plut. Lyc. 22). The glory that the spoils of battle brought to temples they adorned was appreciated even in the second century BC (FGrH III B no. 540 lines 7–8). Of all the panoply, shields and helmets were probably the most prized components. To lose one's shield in the battle-line endangered all, while to throw it away in flight meant disgrace, and therefore captured shields symbolized a glorious victory.7 Those of very important people were greatly prized (Hom. Il. 8.191–3; Thuc. 4.12.1; Plut. Nic. 28.5; Diod. 15.87.6). The ordinary hoplite could not laugh off loss of a shield as sophisticated poets could.8
Helmets could look particularly impressive with their tall challenging crests and gleaming bronze. It has been well said that taking the slain enemy's armour was a substitute for head-hunting, of which Homer preserves a memory (e.g. Il. 17.38–40).9 Though the Greeks of the Archaic Period and later hardly ever indulged in this practice, it was known to them among others (Hdt. 4.64–5 and 9.78–9), and some Greek troops could respond to it. Thus when Philopoemen not only slew and despoiled Machanidas of Sparta in 207 BC but also decapitated him, the sight delighted his men who fought with still more enthusiasm, according to Polybius (11.18.4–8). Perhaps unconsciously helmets were felt to be the least impersonal part of the panoply. But whatever the reasons for it, shields and helmets, complete or partly preserved, are among the commonest sorts of armour to be found so far at Olympia,10 and most of these are probably products of the battlefield. For although soldiers and generals might dedicate their own equipment and huntsmen their spears, such dedications are not mentioned in the sources as often as captures in war, nor could they have been so productive.11
Thus captured armour and weapons could delight and glorify a god just as a gift of fine armour would please and honour a man, and dedicators could hope that for this they would in themselves attract the god's favour towards them in future. But to make that more certain it is likely that thank-offerings of spoils would be accompanied by prayers to that effect, especially for help in times of war, like those
&nbs
p; Figure 2 Corinthian helmet nailed to stake (drawing: R.Clark)
actually inscribed on the Mantiklos Apollo and other votives.12 It would be a very rash victor who did not take the opportunity to offer up the spoils of one success without praying for continued help in future battles. It is thought indeed on very good grounds that votive offerings were believed, and employed, to act while in a sanctuary as vehicles for or embodiments of the offertory prayers of their dedicators.13 Thus, in a sense, once dedicated in the temples of friendly gods, the arms of a city's enemies could be turned against them.
In view of this belief it is remarkable that the pious Spartans are said by Plutarch not to have dedicated captured arms and armour (Mor. 224 B and F), and, as Pritchett has observed, no evidence clearly contradicts him.14 In the two passages concerned, from the Spartan Sayings, first Cleomenes I and then Leotychidas II are asked to explain why Sparta did not make such dedications. Both reply, very unfairly it
might seem, that since captured armour had belonged to cowards it was unfit to offer to the gods. (Leotychidas adds that it was unfit for the young to see, a remark considered on page 235.) This sweeping insult to all Sparta's opponents, as it appears at first sight to be, might condemn this doublet as part of the Sparta her Classical admirers liked to depict. But detached from the kings they are ascribed to, these words could quite plausibly have been said after battles when Sparta's enemies had fled before her hoplites in large numbers, such as Mantinea in 418 BC or the 'Tearless Battle' in 368 BC (Thuc. 5. 72–3; Xen. Hell. 7.1.28–32; Plut. Ages. 33.3–5). The true reason why Sparta did not dedicate spoils could have been her policy of taking as much as possible of the excitement out of battle and victory in the interests of unique and unshakable discipline in the phalanx, with its steady and orderly advance, its strictly limited pursuit and its austere victory sacrifices (Thuc. 5.70 and 73.4; Plut. Ages. 33.3–5). The Spartans thanked the gods for their help generously enough and prayed for their favour in future, but employed other kinds of thank-offering for the purpose (Meiggs and Lewis 36; Paus. 5.10.4 and 24.3; Xen. Hell. 4.3.21).
This Spartan exception proves the rule that, by other Greeks, offerings of spoils were valued very highly, and their dedication was an important part of the victory celebrations, as well as of the environment in which hoplites learned their role, a process now to be examined.
PREPARATION FOR WAR
Among the many experiences which for good or ill prepared each generation for their role as hoplites and for the ordeal of battle, the sight of the spoils of past victories at a city's temples and its countryside shrines could have had all the power of inspiration that highly indoctrinated elite units and proud and ancient regiments find in captured flags, cannon or silverware won by their predecessors. Indeed, they could have had still more power. In the phalanx, son followed father and set out to reach or surpass the standards set by past generations of kinsfolk as well as of fellow citizens, and the dedications symbolized those standards (Plut. Lyc. 21.2; Thuc. 4. 95.3; Dem. 15.35). Further, they expressed a bond between men and gods which each generation could strengthen, if it were brave enough and deserved the help of the gods. What is more, the tacit (or perhaps sometimes explicit) indoctrination the spoils displayed could provide,
could have become familiar to the sons of hoplites from their childhood upwards.
Spoils were often conspicuously displayed. Shields and other items might be fixed along the cornice, over the door or on the temple's doorposts (Eur. Tro. 571–6; Andr. 1122–3; IT 74–5; Paus. 2.21.4.; 6.19.13; 10.19.3), or they might be hung up inside on walls or even from roof timbers (Paus. 10.14.3; IG II2 1469 B lines 67–8).15 Unless the ground outside was solid rock, more might be nailed to posts around the temple, or be hung up in stoas (Paus. 1.15.4; Diod. 12.70.5).16
The roles of hoplites and of dedications would be learnt in childhood. By the age of 4 most boys would begin to learn what the panoplies hung up in the men's quarters or by the hearth were (Hdt. 1.34; Ar. Ach, 279). From that age or even earlier they would see and hear their parents praying and so come to believe in the gods (Pl Leg. 887 D-E). Then, as they saw votive offerings in daily life, the first-fruits at harvest or the skin of a hunter's quarry hung up on a tree by a shrine in the country, they would come to believe in the power of votive offerings to influence the gods. From their fathers and others they would hear about enemies and battles, especially if they lived near a border disputed with a neighbouring city (Arist. Pol. 1330 A 20–3). In this process of learning what being a hoplite meant, the conspicuously displayed offerings of spoils at the temples, seen by many every day, and those within, seen when entering for prayer and on special occasions, would become quite comprehensible and very significant.17 As prizes won by the gods' help and the courage of the hoplites from ever present and hostile neighbours, they would seem to entitle the hoplites to the respect they enjoyed compared with the less well-off, and to set a standard which their sons would hope to reach in the phalanx to which most of them would aspire to belong. All this could have been learnt well before the sons of the hoplites reached 10 years of age, indeed probably by the age of 7, which was when the real professionals in hoplite warfare, the Spartans, saw fit to remove their sons from the comparative normality of their early childhood and feed them into their own very much more intensive and effective system for producing hoplites.
The importance of the dedications of spoils for the young would-be hoplites may have lain partly in their dual character, belonging as they did to friendly gods from their point of entry to the temples onwards, but having originally been the arms and armour of deadly enemies. That hostility would still have been remembered. For Greek
Figure 3 Artist's impression of spoils displayed in a temple precinct (drawing: N.Farrell)
armour was of course designed to be at once efficient and impressive, as it seems to us in the tranquil environment of our museums. But to its owners and their enemies it was intended also to look as grim and menacing as modern weaponry and combat gear do today. Like much military headwear since then, the looming crests on helmets were meant to make their wearers look taller, to distract, challenge and startle the enemy in battle, as effectively (their wearers would hope) as Hector's scared Astyanax (Hom. Il. 6. 466–70). Shields till at least the fifth century BC commonly bore blazons intended to unsettle the enemy in the stress of battle, such as lions or evil-eyed gorgons, or dogs and birds that might tear his despoiled and unburied corpse (Chase 1902:75–6 and 84–5). As for the weapons on display, the scarred limbs of the city's veterans and the graves of its war dead would prove to their relatives how lethal they had been.
But at the same time, and even more forcefully in the numinous surroundings of a temple, the dedications of spoils would make manifest and proclaim that with the help of the gods the arrogant violence of the enemy had been and could again be triumphantly crushed. The spoils, nailed or hung up still and silent within or impaled like battlefield trophies outside a temple of a god whose splendid and generous reward they were, showed, like all other votives of every sort, that in war as in peace the gods had answered the city's prayers, and that they might do so again. Of course it was not necessary to be an atheist to know that the gods did not always answer prayers (Cic. Nat. D. 3.89). But many remained optimistic that they might do so and even in the fourth century BC many were firm in their traditional beliefs (Pl Leg. 887 C-D; 909 D-910 B: Xen. Hell. 3.4.18). It is very tempting to wonder if the Athenian ephebes on their tour of the temples were harangued on the great military treasures of Athens like the Persian spoils or the Spartan shields from Pylos (Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.36; Paus. 1.15.4) as well as others seen on service elsewhere, notably Demosthenes' spoils from Olpae (Thuc 3.114.1).
There may be indirect evidence that some people approved of young hoplites and their younger brothers contemplating captured armour and weapons in temples for reasons like those already mentioned. In Plutarch's Spartan Sayings (Mor. 224 F) as remarked above, King Leotychidas II
is made to say that as the property of cowards they were not fit for the young to see or for offering to the gods. Since they would not normally be seen except as dedications in temples, this seems to amount to a denial of the value of offerings in
improving the young. Many of the practices criticized in the Spartan Sayings by stern Lacedaimonians were normal in other Greek states and this could mean that among the latter, it was commonly felt that the young benefited from admiring the thank-offerings of armour and weapons, won by their ancestors with the help of the gods, which their descendants might also hope for in trying to win more favours. That views on what the young should and should not see for the good of their military development were held and were argued over in the fourth century is at least suggested by Plato. He prescribes actual attendance as observers at battles for the Guardians' children (Resp. 466 E-467 E). If Leotychidas' opinion really originated after Mantinea in 418 BC or in the fourth century, this detail might have been inspired by debates on the military education of citizen young in an age when professional mercenaries were ever more important. Organized or not, such contemplation may have been encouraged, and it probably had some effect, if not in battles against Spartans.
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience Page 33