The Iberians

The Gallic Celts who settled in Spain and mingled among the natives to create the Iberian culture changed very little about their culture in comparison to the Gauls who settled in modern-day France. So, rather than pick through the minutiae of differences between them and their north-eastern neighbors, I will give a short summary of their history and importance before showing several interesting pictures to display some of the more brilliant and unique aspects of the Iberian peoples.

The city of Gadiz was founded in 1104 BCE, according to tradition, and is therefore the oldest continually inhabited city in Western Europe. Its people were Phoenician colonists originally, but over time its population grew to include some local tribes who decided to give up nomadic herding for urban life. This seems to be a trend among the Gauls worldwide, that they eventually decide to build settlements instead of continuing to roam. The Phoenician-Iberian-Celts did very well for themselves, and Gadiz as well as other Spanish settlements became some of Carthage's most prosperous colonies. That's not to say that it was all fuzzy hugs with the Carthaginians; securing their cities from raiding tribes who were competing for resources meant conquering much of Spain, ensuring a healthy supply line for continued prosperity.

The Carthaginians were notorious for farming their wars out to mercenaries. Carthaginian soldiers would form the main line of their army, but they lacked the martial culture of Rome or even their more ancient colonists in Palestine (which you may know as the Philistines). They were much more interested in trade than war, so when war came about, they hired the mercenaries they needed to pursue their military agenda. The Iberian tribes which continued to live outside of Phoenician hegemony were offered a deal during the Second Punic War: fight for us and gain spoils and honest pay. However, try as he might, Hannibal did not have the logistical support necessary to successfully subdue Rome and the Second Punic War ended Carthaginian control over Iberia as part of the terms of peace. The Romans set up shop and used the massive, underpopulated region as their bread basket and plentiful source of metal.

This sword is called a falcata, and its weight is distributed in such a way that swinging it creates the same force and impact as swinging a larger battle axe. It dates to the 4^th Century BCE.

The most useful of their weapons was adopted by the Romans around the 300's BCE and utilized more heavily in their army after the Second Punic War. The Iberian version of this sword was around 5 feet long, which the Romans shortened to 2-3 feet for the practical purpose of stabbing someone by going around their shield

And lastly, this little bronze statue shows an Iberian knight on his horse, gladius in hand and plumed helmet looking very Greek. Clearly the Iberians had an equestrian class capable of purchasing and maintaining horses, indicating some level of class structure.

The Iberian peoples were Romanized at the first available opportunity, and lost most of their connections to the culture of the Gauls, who would not be conquered until Julius Caesar put an end to them once and for all in 50 BCE.

Pax vobiscum

Ancient Metallurgy

The manipulation of metal is one of the most important technological achievements of any civilization, whether ancient or modern. It's impact on both military and civilian life was so immense that entire periods of ancient history are named after the sorts of metals they were able to forge. The Bronze Age in Europe, for example, started in 2300 BCE and ended in 600 BCE. And the same way that modern advances often drive prices down for older technology, the Iron Age caused Bronze to become a more common, affordable commodity for soldier and farmer alike.

The ancient Europeans had many different methods for working metals long before the Romans added their own spice to the process. The earliest was probably hammering, where you just take two different malleable alloys and smash them together with a hammer until they've blended. Not the most efficient means, to be sure, but it was an effective, if time-consuming alternative to costlier methods involving furnaces and seals.

Provided you had a furnace, you could employ it to purify metals and weed out the slag, normally in preparation for working it. Smelting was commonly employed, a process where you seal the melting metal in a small container and separate the metal from the metal oxide. Before you smelted, however, you'd probably want to roast, which means almost literally barbecuing the metal over an open pit to eliminate the sulfur oxide before purifying the metal itself. After the metal has been melted and liberated of impurities, it would be cast into a mold where it would harden and become a plow, fork, helmet, or spearhead.

While the Romans certainly didn't create these and other primitive techniques, they built an empire upon the use of metals. Many of their early conquered lands were rich in metals of all sorts, and it wasn't long before captive slaves were sold to wealthy speculators who forced them to work the mines in Spain, Sicily, Britannia, and many other provinces. The mines were often dangerous, but it is interesting to note that the Romans appeared to have used a sort of hydraulic mining by utilizing their aqueducts and pushing water under some of the more metal-rich mountains especially in Spain. Just like with modern strip-mining, the result is almost offensive to behold.

Security of these mines was of top priority to the Roman government, whether Republican or Imperial. Many wars were fought over the resources they contained because the Romans knew that without a steady supply of metals, both precious and practical, the entire Empire would grind to a halt and even the city itself would be in danger. In fact, almost half of the time, they were fighting wars to ensure that they would be able to fight wars.

Pax vobiscum

Military Monday: The Early Maniples

The Phalanx had served Rome well. The Etruscans used it to dominate the early Romans in the 700's BCE, and the Romans were nothing if not very efficient copy-cats. So they worked toward overcoming Etruscan hegemony and in 509 BCE (or sometime thereabout), they succeeded in overthrowing their king and reforming their constitution to include separation of powers, election of Senators, and citizens' assemblies. Their Hoplite armies proceeded to subdue the cities in northern Italy, and established Roman hegemony in their region. However, the Phalanx proved problematic in several embarrassing battles.

The Roman Phalanx was arrayed with the wealthiest citizens in the front, center rank, which made sense because they had the best quality armor and weapons. A strong core meant a strong army, or so the wisdom of the time dictated. However, an army with weak flanks is just asking for trouble, which the Romans learned at a great cost at The Battle of the Allia around 390 BCE, where the Senone Gauls crushed their flanks and surrounded their core, killing them to the man. Later, in the Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE), the Romans learned from their enemies the value of small, flexible groups in a battle. And by learned from, I mean that they got beaten like little girls several times by these 'barbarians,' before numbers and brute force established their dominance over the hill country of central Italy.

So, whether through sweeping reforms as the later historians claimed, or through the more likely course of gradual tactical evolution, the Romans decided to do away with the single-line Phalanx and make way for a more effective army. This army would consist of three different types of heavy foot soldiers who were arrayed in three lines on the field in a checkerboard formation. Of particular concern, especially to the Roman upper-class, was the economic order of soldiers. Putting the most well-armed and protected soldiers in the front line made sense if you wanted the initial shock to truly penetrate the enemy line, but it meant that those soldiers may be unable to help if the battle was long and contentious. So the change in battle-lines began with placing the poorest of the soldiers (who were still members of that upper rung, just 'lower-upper' classmen) at the front of the army. These front-line soldiers were called Hastati, named for the spears they carried, the Hasta. Early on, all of the soldiers carried these spears, but the Hastati were likely named for it because they were at least wealthy enough to afford their own spear.

All of this would vary because all the equipment was self-provided, but a typical Hastati would be outfitted in leather armor and a bronze helmet, but no leg armor. Along with their Hasta, they would carry a scutum, one of those famous convex rectangular shields. After the Hastati was the Principe, who carried the same weapons, but had leg armor and chain-mail covering their torso, which was highly prized in the ancient world for giving protection without hindering mobility. The third line was composed of Triarii, who had the heaviest armor and highest quality weapons, and fought in a tight phalanx. The flanking units, who were above the Triarii, were the Equites, early cavalrymen rich enough to afford the best armor and weapons, and a horse. Incidentally, this is the reason that horse-related activities are referred to as “equestrian.”

Attached to each of the line soldiers was a compliment of Leves, or javelin-throwers who used light javelins to harass the enemy line before a charge. This proved especially effective against a Phalanx because it is hard to maintain a strong frontal formation while dodging javelins. Gaps could be exploited, and the enemy line could be divided and crushed. Discipline was essential for this kind of fighting, and lieutenants had to pay close attention to the banners and whistles coming from the main army to make sure their unit wasn't surrounded if there was a call to retreat. Training the individual soldiers took a few months out of the year, and it was considered the duty of the wealthy in Rome to protect the city and advance the Roman agenda throughout the world.

A typical Roman battle using the Camillian Maniples would go like this: Hastati charge, while Leves soften the line. If the Hastati couldn't break the enemy battle line, they would retreat in an organized fashion behind the Triarii in the back while the Principes charged forward, making their own attempt to crush the enemy. However, if they could not succeed, then they, too would retreat and the Triarii would charge.

Usually the Triarii could luxuriate behind the battle line and watch the show, but if a battle was going poorly enough for them to get involved, it was not a good sign. A Latin idiom meaning 'to be in a desperate situation' is ' rem ad Triarios redisse,' which literally means, 'it has come to the Triarii.' For example, "How close are you to getting out of debt?” “It has come to the Triarii.” Try it next time someone asks you about a hopeless situation, and the look on their face should lift your spirits nicely!

As well as this primitive strategy worked, it couldn't last forever. And as you may have guessed, it was  humiliating defeat that forced the Romans once again to renew their tactical and strategic methods and ensure their dominance of the Mediterranean. Hannibal, in particular, played a part in bringing the spearmen-based Maniples to an end, especially after a huge Roman army was crushed at the Battle of Cannae.

However, despite the resounding defeats they suffered, what kept Roman culture and influence alive for more than a thousand years was their ability to adapt. It's true that their pride was gravely wounded by massive defeats (especially from the 'barbarians'), but eventually they got over themselves, went back to the drawing board, and found something that worked. And the coming reform of the Legions meant that the class preference in the Roman army would be destroyed for a merit-based seniority system.

Pax vobiscum

Famous Friday: Pomp(ey) and Circumstance

Toward the beginning of the 100's CE, the Roman army was radically redesigned by Gaius Marius, who changed the rules and forever changed Rome. Prior to these reforms, in order to serve in the Roman army, you had to be a member of the upper class, own a significant plot of land, and provide your own weapons and armor. Marius opened the ranks to all classes of Romans, promising land and plunder to whoever signed up. The army was thus transformed from an elite institution into a social ladder by which “new men” could earn money and fame for themselves and climb the class structure. One of these new men was Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, the father of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, known by his more common title, Pompey the Great.

Pompey was only nineteen when his father was killed during a Roman civil war. He inherited a massive and wealthy estate and after two marriages, was swiftly climbing to the most powerful ranks of Roman society. His father-in-law, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, had distinguished himself by winning the first Mithridatic war in Greece and Asia Minor, and had several uses in mind for Pompey. Sulla became the Dictator of Rome and sent Pompey to secure the empire from further rebellions and civil strife.

First on the to-do list was Sicily, which supplied Rome with necessary grain. Next was North Africa, Numidia to be specific, where Pompey excelled at achieving victory with his legions. However, this presented a problem when he returned to Rome wanting a triumphal entry because he was a privatus, that is, just a private citizen with no Senate-seat or Senate-given titles and for him to be granted a parade was actually illegal. Sulla decided to allow it only after he and another general were finished with their own parades. When the day arrived, Pompey was embarrassed by a late start because of an incident with an elephant-driven chariot. It seems that the gates of Rome were too narrow for the elephant to fit, so he had to make a few last-minute changes.

A few years after Sulla's death, he asked for the title of Proconsular Imperium of Hispania (that's Spain and Portugal) so that he might crush an ongoing Roman rebellion in that area. The Senate was beginning to fear this young upstart who gloried in military triumphs but seemed to have no interest in becoming a Senator or going the traditional rout of Roman leadership. They also didn't wish to offend the general in Hispania who already held that title, thus giving them another rebellion on their hands. However, as he refused to disband his legions until they agreed to his title, they acquiesced, hoping that perhaps he would meet his end in Iberia. They were mistaken, of course, and Pompey destroyed the rebellion in five years.

Enter Spartacus. While I do plan on writing more about this slave-general in future weeks, this will be minimal. The Third Servile War was underway in Italy, with Spartacus as its leader. Crassus, another future Famous Friday subject, had faced the Gladiator/Slave army and defeated it, killing Spartacus in the process. Pompey was making his way back to Rome, and encountered the remnants of the enemy army, capturing about five thousand of them. He brought them into Rome as his slaves, and claimed credit for wiping out the rebellion for good. Crassus, needless to say, was not amused.

Pompey was then granted his second (but still illegal) triumphal entry by the Senate, who continued to fear the influence he had with the common people of Rome, the mob. In an attempt to domesticate this brilliant warrior, they elected him Consul, despite the fact that it was a Senate-only office and Pompey had never even been elected Senator. He ruled the Senate as a Consul right alongside his fellow Consul and longtime anti-fan, Crassus. It seems that the Senate believed the two would cancel each other out, their fame would fade with time, and they could be swept from office in a few years. Unfortunately, Pompey and Crassus both desired power, and they proved willing to work with even each other to attain it.

Just when it seemed like Rome's enemies had all been contained, the problem of piracy began to re-emerge in the Mediterranean. Two years after his Consul-ship, Pompey was given command of a naval task force designed to obliterate piracy completely. It was another controversial appointment for the still unelected general, but it passed through the Senate albeit by narrow margins thanks to Julius Caesar (who hadn't become Caesar yet). Whether they liked Pompey or not, they couldn't argue with results. Short version of Pompey's naval command: Pirates lose, Pompey wins, no more pirates for awhile. This, of course, made him popular with the masses once again and left his Senatorial enemies wringing their hands over what to do.

Meanwhile, back in Pontus, the third war against Mithridates the Great was going swimmingly well for one Lucius Lucinius Lucullus (who, I'm guessing, didn't appreciate being called 'Lucy'). However, his troops were growing weary and insubordinate after years of fighting without much to show for it, and Rome was starting to doubt his ability to subdue Asia Minor and the East. He had been chasing Mithridates VI around the countryside, only to learn that he had sought refuge at the court of Tigranes II, the king of Armenia. So he sent an arrogant letter to Tigranes demanding that he produce Mithridates, which Tigranes refused. Then, after fighting with the Armenians for a few years, he also failed to capture Tigranes. Thus, he was replaced by Pompey, who chased Mithridates all the way to Colchis, in the northern Black Sea coast. He still didn't capture the last Pontic king, but he didn't waste any time. He set up Roman-style governing authorities to replace the Pontic nobles and went about conquering Syria, Palestine, and Judea. Afterwards, he returned to Rome, had some more parades, and allied with Julius and Crassus to form the Great Triumvirate which would eventually bring an end to the Republic and usher in the age of Emperors. I'll write more about this in a few weeks when we take a look at Julius Caesar.

While Pompey was certainly skilled at all matters military, politics brought about his eventual undoing. The Great Triumvirate worked well while it lasted, but just like the Highlanders, there can be only one. Caesar practically chased Pompey out of Rome, and once he secured his family, he debated where to go next. He decided on Egypt, which was being ruled by the Greek Ptolemies, and fled there with Caesar's Triremes close behind. When he set foot on the shore, he was stabbed to death by the Egyptian “welcoming party.” The Pharoah thought it best to dispatch Pompey and present his body to Caesar, thus preventing a large-scale pitched war in their country.

Caesar, so the story goes, was not happy about Pompey's death, even though they had become enemies. He put his assassins to death and gave Pompey's remains over to his wife, who took his ashes back to his country home in Alba. His reputation was that of a great and famous general who fought for Rome and whose life ended ultimately as a tragedy.

Pax vobiscum

Technology Tuesday: The Scythed Chariot

If you ever read accounts of early white American colonists and their scuffles with the native peoples, you may be surprised to find out just how often the colonists won battles despite being outnumbered by huge margins. Sometimes, this was because the colonists would target women and children instead of warriors, but when they did face native warriors, they won because of weaponry. Now, if you've ever watched a demonstration of a musket from the 1600's, you know that hitting anything with that unwieldy, smooth-bored weapon would be pretty impressive, even from ten feet away. But the shot itself is only half of the musket's usefulness; the other half is the bang. The Native Americans had a natural fear of smoke during battle because fire is an uncontrollable force of nature. The muskets give a loud report followed by clouds of white smoke and even if it didn't cause mass casualties, it usually caused enough fear to lead to a rout within a few volleys, often less. So it was with the ancient world that there were some weapons useful for their practical effectiveness in battle and others which, though they did not inflict great physical damage, caused fear and panic.

One such weapon of fear is the Scythed Chariot, brought to Asia Minor from Persia during the Greco-Persian wars. Civilian chariots were a status symbol in Rome, and in most of ancient Europe. Owning a horse was an expensive venture by itself, much less owning enough to pull you comfortably along in your little convertible boxcar. They were also used in races in the hippodrome, as seen on Ben Hur. The design of the chariot varied considerably depending upon its use, and the Scythed Chariot's use was to plow through tightly packed enemy formations to break them apart and to slaughter men in large numbers.

A typical Scythed Chariot was built very heavy, since it was made for combat. Four horses (usually heavily armored) would pull a large, sturdy boxcar with two or three soldiers inside, one to drive and the others to protect the driver. The wheels of the chariot were large and spoked, and attached to both sides of the axles were one or more three-to-five foot blades. You can imagine the carnage that would ensue if even one of these monstrosities successfully charged a tightly-packed Phalanx.

Spears, and especially the long Macedonian spears, could be effective in slowing the charge, but only by a coordinated defense could these frightening inventions be countered. Each had the charging power of four heavy horses, and even if the first two were injured, the momentum they created would still cause the bladed wheels to tear through men like fire to dried underbrush. Alexander the Great faced them when he pushed into Persia during his conquest, and he formulated an effective containment solution. His Phalanxes would move into an E-shaped formation, focusing the small center column against the vicious chariots. When the densely-packed group would slow the chariot's initial charge, The outside columns would flank it and kill the drivers and horses. This was effective, but costly, and not every center column was able to stand their ground as they needed to.

The Romans had a better counter: move out of the way. Their army was structured like their society; efficient. Their forces were disciplined, and they had a clearly-defined command structure. Their flexible formations gave them a great advantage over these heavy weapons, which were not easily maneuverable.

During the Mithridatic Wars, Mithridates VI made the mistake of using his Scythed Chariots in an initial charge, thinking to thin the Roman lines for his foot troops. Instead, the Romans moved out of the chariots' way at the last second, allowing them to pass through their ranks and into rough ground behind them that they had lined with stakes. Many of the chariots stopped in time, but were pretty easily dispatched by a few Triarii who were waiting for them. The Roman army taunted their Pontic enemy, cheering for the chariots as if they were watching a race. This fearful weapon had failed to bring victory, and Mithridates ended up losing that battle, his troops being demoralized to see their fellow soldiers slaughtered and mocked.

The Scythe Chariot was not finished with history at this point, however, and Mithridates' son Pharnaces II actually utilized them effectively against a Roman army himself much later. However, they were costly to maintain and the fear they created wasn't sufficient to infect Roman troops, so as Rome conquered the East, they fell out of style and practice as a suitable weapon. Eventually, the Romans thought of better things they could place on the chariots instead of blades; siege weapons. Yes, they later strapped ballistae (kind of a big crossbow) to the backs of their wagons and used them as the world's first known mobile artillery.

Pax vobiscum

Military Monday: The Early Army of Mithridates VI

The army of Pontus reflected the Kingdom itself, and even its king: it was a mixture of different fighting men with different styles, cultures, and ideas. In the best of circumstances, this mix led to sweeping victory, but in the end, it led to ultimate defeat. Fancying himself the heir of Alexander the Great, Mithridates VI followed Alex's tendency to augment his army with whatever kind of troops he conquered along the way. While this worked well for Alexander, it should be noted that Mithridates lived considerably longer and this region had been changing for almost three hundred years since the young Macedonian conqueror.

Asia Minor was and remains a land of many peoples. Considered prime colonial ground by the Greeks, it had an unmistakable flavor of Hellenist-style learning, fighting, and worship. However, there were also Persian colonists there, left-over from Darius' invasion years before Alexander. And this is all in combination with the native peoples, who were primarily tribal, though growing more and more agrarian and urban, forsaking their nomadic ways. In order to unite these people, Mithridates would often resort to xenophobia, at least the anti-Roman variety, thus giving them a common enemy. Here, truly, was a wise student in the art of war.

After he had conquered some of the Balkan region to the North, Mithridates looked to securing his borders in the south. So he made plans, along with Nicomedes III, the king of western neighbor Bithynia, to divy up the area called Cappadocia, just south of Pontus, between the two of them. Mithridates' sister was ruling as regent because her husband had just died. Nicomedes, being a cunning king himself, decided to marry the sister instead, leaving one of his sons in charge of the region.

The two men sent representatives to Rome to resolve the dispute, leaving Nicomedes in a position of comfort, thinking that there would be no battle until their dignitaries returned. Mithridates waited for a time, then invaded Cappadacia outright, and its puppet king was killed in the ensuing fight. This enraged the Romans in the area, who helped Nicomedes raid and burn several towns and settlements in southern Pontus as punishment for his invasion.

Mithridates was more than capable of stopping this looting, but instead he allowed it to happen. Nicomedes ravaged the countryside while the Pontic king merely took reports and made preparations. He knew that the Romans would likely move against him on the pretense of aiding Bithynia, and so he spread word far and wide that those villages had been pillaged under Roman advice, thus uniting the varied people of Pontus against Rome, and Bithynia, her handmaiden. Raising an army was easy for him at this point; those who had their crops and livestock stolen by the Bithynian raiders were only too happy to take up a spear and get some of it back, with interest.

Sure enough, the three Roman generals whose armies were in various parts of Asia Minor all moved against Pontus with the hope of quelling Mithridates VI. The three armies were probably about forty thousand each, along with Nicomedes' army which was reportedly fifty thousand foot, six thousand horse. If they had all joined together to take on this rogue Pontic despot, they may have had a chance. But in their anger, and without waiting for orders from the Roman Senate, they took him on individually, along with his army of two hundred and fifty thousand foot and forty thousand horse. He crushed them one by one, capturing their generals and subjecting them to horrible, humiliating treatment.

His footmen were likely Phalanx pikemen at the core, along with lighter armed auxiliaries and javilineers. The javelin-throwers of Pontus were legendary for their accuracy, and the deadliness of their weapons. The horsemen he employed were mostly, probably all, javelin-armed and heavily armored, capable of forming a kind of highly-mobile Phalanx which disrupted enemy formations with missiles before charging home at their flanks. His tactics were most likely pin-and-fork, using the heavy spearmen to hold the enemy in place while his horses harassed their flanks and caused a rout. He may have also had some Scythian horse archers in his ranks, recruited when he defeated them in the Bosporus up north, and if that were the case, their contribution would have been immeasurable. They were a Steppe people; born in the saddle and taught to ride and shoot from a very young age. Their accuracy was high, and their tactics were notorious: they would pretend to retreat in a panic, only to outrun their pursuers while shooting them with their poisoned arrows. No matter Mithridates' tactics, the comparatively small armies of Rome and Bithynia didn't stand a chance.

Because of this conquest, all of Asia Minor was under his control. He moved swiftly to secure the loyalties of Greek colonies in the western regions, and sent representatives to gain alliances with the Greek cities, who had been living almost a hundred years under Roman hegemony. They eagerly agreed, giving Mithridates a buffer region with which to hold back immediate Roman retaliation.

Unfortunately for him, when Rome did retaliate, they took all of Greece back, but signed a treaty with him that left him in control of Asia Minor. Though he accomplished much and did a lot to unify such a diverse group, it seems that their divisions were stronger than a mutual hatred of Rome. Mithridates the Great himself spoke at least twenty-two languages, which apparently was necessary just to communicate with all the captains in his army!

In the ensuing Mithridatic Wars, the Romans repeatedly punished Pontus with their manipular legions and flexible tactics. Eventually, trouble within his own household was Mithridates' undoing as he was betrayed by Pharnaces, his illegitimate son.

Opinion of this warlord varies, depending on the source. Some look upon him as just another petty king trying to build an empire and advance his own name. Others see him as a kind of freedom fighter against Roman imperial oppression. Personally, the jury's out for me. I think he was much smarter than the average despot, yet his cruelty toward Romans, both military and civilian, cannot be overlooked. It should be noted, however, that he never referred to himself with the surtitle “the Great.” That was something the Romans did shortly after he died. It seems that though they were enemies, there was something about this man that they deeply respected.

Pax vobiscum

Culture Wednesday: Sparta - The Phobiopolis

Few of my friends still make the mistake of mentioning any recent 'historical' movie in my presence. I don't get invited if that's what they're going to see, and if anyone brings it up in conversation, someone else in the group is quick to silence them if I'm around. This is because I hate (HATE) pretty much all modern movies based on historical events. And that includes the most recent Greek tale of heroics and glory, 300.

But wait, before you go back to the lolcats and delete my feed, hear this: I solemnly swear not to make this entire post about how inaccurate and terrible this movie was. However, you should be aware that it will come up. This is not a movie review, just a second look at the Spartans, through the lens of reality rather than romance. Let's start with Sparta's economy.

Every Spartan male was part of the army. From age 7 or so, they would live in the barracks and learn to be ruthless, survivalist warriors. However, if everyone is a Hoplite, who grows the food? Who trades? Well, the Spartan warriors that so many have come to revere and admire were slavers, plain and simple. Sometime very near the founding of Sparta, the surrounding indigenous people, later known as Helots, were enslaved and forced to work on the farms that dotted the Spartan countryside. They wore dog-skin hats and out-numbered the Spartans about 10 to 1 by most estimates. And periodically, just to keep things interesting, the leaders of Sparta would call for a mass execution. Or some soldiers would just kill a few Helots for amusement.

Some historians have claimed that the Helots, though no doubt resistant to their captivity at first, gradually grew to believe the Spartan propaganda that they were less than human and lived only to obey. The number of Helot rebellions seems to squish this theory like a fat, slow bug, however, and I can't bring myself to imagine anyone enjoying slavery. On top of the rebellions, the Spartans themselves would always bear their spear and shield when walking around the city at night, only unbuckling their shields when they were safely within the walls of their own home. That's how seriously they took the threat of being murdered secretly by a group of Helots.

Of course, slavery was common in ancient times, and the Greeks had several different words for slave, ranging from a slave captured in battle to an indentured servant. No one was as cruel to their slaves as the Spartans, though, which has raised a number of questions dealing with their unabashed oppression.

First, why the wanton violence toward the unarmed slaves? Why did they give them annual beatings regardless of their behavior? I believe the answer is fear. The Spartans, under all their armor, chutzpah, and rigorous training were nothing more than a bunch of frightened people trying desperately to obtain some sense of control.

The day-to-day Spartan lifestyle is pretty famous, and is the one thing I will give credit to 300 for portraying correctly. When they were not campaigning, they lived very simple lives as if they always lived in camp. They wore burlap-like clothes, and even their kings lacked the jewels and pomp of their Eastern neighbors. This is why the Spartans were never bribed with money; they didn't use it. Gold was just a shiny metal to them, and they scorned the opulence of Athens and Corinth. Even today, Spartan has become an adjective for someone who lives on the barest necessities.

They craved military power, to the point of conscripting the entire free population permanently. Their army was their most valuable commodity, and it set them apart from their neighbors. To have the Spartans in your alliance was a good reason for your enemies to negotiate. Their Phalanxes were near unbreakable, and their armor was heavy and durable. However, while we interpret military strength as a reason for security, that same thought reveals the insecurity of building up a military in the first place. Why build such a massive, professional force if you have nothing to fear? It was in fear that they trained, and a pure cynical ploy to motivate the troops by the council of Elders to leave the city with no walls (claiming Sparta's fighting men are its walls).

They practiced infanticide for those babies who had deformities or were crippled from birth. This practice horrifies us today, and no one will defend a mother who has left her baby in a dumpster by saying that she is just being “spartan.” Surely they could find work for a child that was disabled, the same way that the Japanese, for example, would train their blind people in the art of massage and acupuncture? But common work is not for Spartans; it is for Helots. The Spartans are born to fight or they are killed after birth. This, too, was fear at work. Fear of weakness, fear of social change, and fear of subjugation.

So the next time you watch a movie or read a book portraying those gallant, rugged, and noble Spartans defending their homeland or joining their allies to defend Greece, don't be taken in by the romantic view that started, I believe, with the Renaissance. Remember the Helot, who lived in daily fear of his life. Remember the baby whose life was taken because he was deemed unfit to live. Remember, most of all, the founders and leaders who would take the freedom of ten times their number just to ensure their own.

Pax vobiscum

Technorati Tags: sparta, fear, slavery, oppression

Military Monday: Phillip II's Phavorite Phormation

Say you're an ancient Mediterranean warlord getting ready for a campaign and you've mustered a few thousand spear-men through levies and conscription. Now what? You could just march them straight into combat, that is, if you enjoy playing dice with peoples' lives. Or, if you are serious about gaining a victory with minimal losses, you'll use a disciplined formation; you will teach them the Phalanx.

Several ancient cultures, especially the Greeks and Romans, utilized this formation as the core of their strategy. A Phalanx is a group of spear-men who stand in rank shoulder to shoulder and shield to shield, their spears pointed in a unified direction, creating a wall of spear-points. If something happened to the front rank, the second rank would step up to take their place. It started as a simple idea, but simple ideas have a way of evolving when they come into contact with the right people.

The Phalanx came into its own with Phillip II of Macedon, a charismatic, smart Greek warlord and Alexander the Great's absentee father. Under his leadership, the Kingdom of Macedon expanded and conquered much of the Greek peninsula, and he showed no signs of slowing down. Macedon had been a relatively obscure power until he came along, after being educated in warfare while he was a hostage in Thebes. He had learned how a simple switch in traditional strategy had given the Thebans victory over the mighty Spartans and therefore, hegemony over the entire Greek world.

The Spartans always placed their most experienced and elite forces on their right-most flank, but this was a tradition with no strategic purpose. The Thebans took advantage and placed their most elite directly against them, bolstering those ranks with common soldiers as well. The Spartans' right flank crumbled and the rest is, well, history.

The Phalanx was more than just a bunch of guys with spears playing follow the leader though: there were several strategies that they could employ to adjust to their situation. Marching against archers? Bunch up closer to give a smaller target. What if the enemy infantry charges? Macedonian Spears, or sarissas had a short spike on their hilt (called a “lizard killer”) which you could stick in the ground, allowing the enemy to impale themselves on your spears without giving ground. Good order in a Phalanx generally led to victory, and likewise bad order led to certain defeat.

One-sided formations work well as long as the enemy is only attacking from that one direction. However, the sides and rear of the Phalanx were wide open, and unless the lieutenant saw a flank coming and had time to turn the men, they would most likely be scattered and routed by a charge of cavalry or even lightly-armed reinforcements.

Heavy armor was essential for the Hoplites of Phillip's (and later Alexander's) army. Their early conquests were against fellow Greeks who also employed Phalanxes, albeit with inferior equipment (more on this tomorrow). In Phalanx vs. Phalanx, the most important things are quality of weapons, durability of armor, and the discipline of the troops. They would march to each other and then repeatedly strike using brisk stabbing motions, hammering away at their opposition. If a front-rank soldier became afraid, there was nowhere to run, and panic nearly always leads to crushing defeat.

When Phillip II returned from Thebes, he secured his realm and immediately began a rigorous training program for his soldiers. They became experts at the Phalanx, which their leader used to a devastating effect on the battlefield. Their discipline gave them a sense of security on the field, while their leader's charisma gave them confidence.

Alexander the Great owed much to his father. But, although Phillip II built the machine, young Alex would drive it to great fame, which the ancient Greeks desired above all else. This wasn't just a case of a spoiled teenager winning a race with daddy's Bentley, however. Alexander improved on his father's tactics and made them work so well that he regularly won against superior forces. The main way he accomplished this was by a tactic similar to what the Medieval strategists called the Pin and Fork. One of Alexander's Phalanxes would engage an enemy Phalanx, while another unit would flank them . . . or Phlank them [/pun]. However, he did not allow the power of the Phalanx to seduce him into relying on it alone. As he passed through Asia minor, (and by passed through, I mean conquered) he would add local units to his army, taking advantage of their strengths and leading even his vanquished to victory. Using the Phalanx as a core, this young man was able to conquer all of Asia Minor, Palestine, the entire Fertile Crescent, and get all the way to the border of India. Then he drank himself to death, or was poisoned, at the age of 32 while returning home to take a break between victories.

Of course, all things must come to an end, and progress is no respecter of tradition. The Romans, who had also grown very powerful by utilizing the Phalanx, set their eyes on expanding further. They began using larger shields, javelins, and a 3-line infantry tactic that could crush an army of Phalanxes by flanking, dividing, and conquering. Using these and other techniques (stay tuned, kids!), they drove many of the Greek colonists out of Italy and ruled over those that remained. And just as the Phalanx began in Greece and spread to India, Rome's tactics met with success the world over.

Pax vobiscum

A Weekly Format

In the interest of organization, I have decided on a weekly schedule so that I can better plan these posts and keep updates regular. After some thinking, here's what I've decided on:

Military Mondays - For all things martial. Monday's posts will cover tactics, weaponry, armor (or lack thereof), and all manner of warfare. Expect some series' out of this day, like The Punic Wars and The Marian Reforms.

Technology Tuesdays - Ancient technology will be the center of Tuesday's discussions. From triremes to pulleys, we will examine every aspect of ancient technology in all its amazing forms. Here is where I'll also discuss the war technology in greater detail (though I'll probably 'synergize' this with Monday's post e.g. posting about the invasion of Britannia on Monday and writing about the design and brutal effectiveness of the scorpion siege weapon on Tuesday).

Culture Wednesdays - C-C-C-Combo Breaker! Yeah, I couldn't think of anything that started with 'W' that would both relate to the ancient world and be important enough to warrant its own day, so Wednesdays got stuck with culture. But hey, we'll talk about Togas, superstitions, mathematics and education. And don't forget: you can't spell culture without spelling cult!

Theology Thursdays - Belief in the divine other was central to life in the ancient world, and the Roman Empire saw plenty of change on that front. And no, I'm not just referring to the advent of Christianity. Get ready to learn about Emperor worship, proper sacrifice techniques, and how the Philosophers tried to tie it all together.

Famous Fridays - The one day of the week when I will sell out and write about some well-known figure of antiquity in all their glory, hypocrisy, and glorious hypocrisy. Seriously, though, I will be investigating sources to formulate theories on how common people thought of, say, Julius Caesar during his time and long after his death. The Romans especially had a serious jones for hero worship, but they were not alone in that regard. I'll probably also touch on the paradigms for ancient heroes because they are very different from modern standards.

Feel free to leave a comment on any post you feel like. I want this blog to be a conversation - not a lecture. If you think I'm wrong, or being unfair, please let me know and I'll adjust my position (or tell you how you're wrong and being unfair. Doesn't feel good does it?). If you think I'm right, send me some kudos. Like all writers, my poor little ego is fragile and needs constant praise to prop it up.

Pax Vobiscum