Glued Linen Armour- a simple test

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

What sort of body armour were "Xenophon's" mercenary hoplites wearing on their anabasis?

Xenophon refers to two types of Hoplite armour, viz, "thorakes" ( lit: body armour) almost certainly a reference to the bronze muscled corselet in this context ( we are told they are heavier than the other sort, and there were evidently fewer than 50 in the army) and "spolades" by definition a leather body armour which hangs from the shoulders, and is almost certainly the common Tube-and-Yoke corselet......

[Paralus]

) almost certainly a reference to the bronze muscled corselet in this context ( we are told they are heavier than the other sort, and there were evidently fewer than 50 in the army) and "spolades" by definition a leather body armour which hangs from the shoulders, and is almost certainly the common Tube-and-Yoke corselet......

In the normal course of things one would assume that the supposed "muscled" corselet belonged to the senior individuals (Chirisphorus, Clearchus, Cleanor, Sophaenetus, etc) - often described as "generals" or similar. These they will, one assumes, have owned themselves. What, though, might Cyrus have provided the others with?

[Paullus Scipio]

There are no references to Cyrus providing equipment. Mercenaries who served the various Persian Straps brought their own equipment, almost certainly.

[Paralus]

There are no references to Cyrus providing equipment. Mercenaries who served the various Persian Straps brought their own equipment, almost certainly.

Not so fast...

If that were the case then the King would be a little presumptuous in requiring his equpment (hopla) be returned to him (Xen. Anab. 2.5.38)

For yourselves, the King demands your arms; for he says that they belong to him, since they belonged to Cyrus, his slave.

[Paullus Scipio]

Oooooooooh ! .....you set up a trick question
The quotation you refer to is not the Great King's first demand for the Greeks to surrender their arms. At II.1.8-9, just after the battle, he simply claims them by right of conquest:
"When these Heralds came up, they called for the leaders of the Greeks and said that the King, since victory had fallen to him and he had slain Cyrus, directed the Greeks to give up their arms..."
Shortly after Proxenus says: "I wonder whether the King is asking for our arms on the assumption that he is victorious, or simply as gifts on the assumption that we are his friends."
The Great King assumed that as they were surrounded and stranded far away from their own country, they and all their property were "his", as Phalinus the Greek envoy for the King remarks.
Theopompus says "We have no other possessions save our arms and our valour" and "Do not suppose that we shall give up to you the only possessions that we have".
As both side knew, 10,000 armed Greeks were dangerous, 10,000 unarmed Greeks were just so many slaves.
Clearchus responded; "we shall be more valuable friends if we retain our arms than if we surrender them to someone else; and if it is a case of fighting, we shall fight better if we retain our arms than if they are in someone else's possession"
After treacherously killing their leaders, the King again demands their arms, in stronger terms, in the words you quote.

None of this is evidence that Cyrus provided their arms, but rather the opposite, that their arms were their own.

[Paralus]

All of which I knew prior to posting and none of which negates the clear and explicit attestation that these arms were Cyrus'. There is no need at all of the phrase "for he says they belong to him since they belonged to Cyrus" if he is repeating a claim based simply on defeat on the battlefield.

The notion that the bulk of these mercenaries had their arms supplied by Cyrus is not new and in fact goes back to Roy ("Mercenaries of Cyrus" Hist. 16 1967). It has more recently been restated by McKechnie ("Greek Mercenary Troops and Their Equipment" Hist. 43 1994)

That Cyrus could supply such goes without saying: he had recently supplied Sparta the means of defeating Athens. This meant ships, sailors, rigging and, of course, money. So, if he did, what do you reckon he supplied them with?

[Paullus Scipio]

Sorry, I stick by my previous opinion....there is no evidence that Cyrus supplied the mercenaries equipment. Just because the Great King issued a bolder, more arrogant, claim after having 'decapitated' the Greek Leadership is no evidence at all.

Of course, in a sense, the 10,000 'belonged' to Cyrus - he was their paymaster, and a generous one, paying well over the 'going rate'. Hence the Great King's tenuous claim.

Moreover, the Mercenary Army was raised from over ten different sources, almost all of them existing forces, so they were already armed with their own equipment when hired. Furthermore, by the time Cyrus hired his army, the 'terms of service' were well standardised, including the fact that mercenaries brought with them their own weapons.

Also, ships, crews rigging etc were readily to be had from Phoenicia and/or Egypt - Persia had supplied this sort of thing before.....but Persia could not supply Hoplite panoplia.Greek helmets and aspides were complex items to manufacture. If Cyrus had purchased 11,000 panoplia, it would have been the equivalent of several cities annual output, and would hardly have gone unremarked !!

Not being familiar with the secondary writers you refer to, I would be interested to see what their arguments are - perhaps you can supply them ?

If Cyrus supplied anything at all, then the fact that the Ten Thousand were uniformly dressed in red/crimson tunics at the review might be a clue that he had provided clothing.......

[Lýsandros]

Maybe I missed it in my quick review of the thread, but what is the "gold" colored decoration? Paint?

I must admit my ignorance of the ancient greek leather paints. I have used a modern golden paint that I have used before and I know for certain will last for a very long time. I know that they have used muds containing various metals (such as iron) with water, especially for ceramics, but thats where my knowledge ends. Can anyone provide some useful information about what would be a historically acurate leather paint?

[Paralus]

Sorry, I stick by my previous opinion....there is no evidence that Cyrus supplied the mercenaries equipment.

Aside, of course, from this clear statement.

Of course, in a sense, the 10,000 'belonged' to Cyrus - he was their paymaster.

Yet the King is not asking for them but for the arms that belonged to Cyrus and are, by right, the King's.

Moreover, the Mercenary Army was raised from over ten different sources, almost all of them existing forces, so they were already armed with their own equipment when hired.

Which implies that all these mercenaries were of a "class" to be able to afford same. This would mean that we must suppose that there were "armies" of reasonably well to do and respectable Greek citizens (certainly well enough off to buy a panoply) who had decided that hiring themselves out was a good career. This would be Xenophon's mercenaries of the anabasis who were so well off they took slaves along and not a few actually paid to join in. Either that or they are the poor with no means of making a living and are of bad character. If Xenophon is right we have a class of citizen who has decamped his holdings to go adventuring.

The eternal question: did they go and sign up for noble causes (and add a little extra cash) or did they do so because it was their only living?

Furthermore, by the time Cyrus hired his army, the 'terms of service' were well standardised, including the fact that mercenaries brought with them their own weapons.

Are you able to supply the rationale for this standardised "terms of service"?

One of the reasons for the notion that Cyrus' supplied much of these arms is the actual size of the army. As well, it is not as if an employer supplying arms to mercenaries had not happened. Athens did so with the peltasts sent to Evagoras in 391 (Lysias Aristophanes [19] 43):

when the Cypriots came and you gave them the ten vessels, he supplied thirty thousand drachmae to pay the light infantry and purchase their arms.

Also there is the army of Dionysius in Sicily (Diod. 14 41.3-4):

After collecting many skilled workmen, he divided them into groups in accordance with their skills, and appointed over them the most conspicuous citizens, offering great bounties to any who created a supply of arms. As for the armour, he distributed among them models of each kind, because he had gathered his mercenaries from many nations; for he was eager to have every one of his soldiers armed with the weapons of his people…

Evidently, Dionysius’ mercenaries (from many nations – including Greek – hence the Greek craftsmen) were unaware of the standardised terms. Also the Phocians, in the Sacred War, evidently supplied their mercenary army with weapons – at the minimum – as Diodorus claims. Onomarchus made ready a “great supply” of weapons and, after Crocus Field, attempting to reverse fortune, his brother “began to gather a multitude of mercenaries, offering double the customary pay, and summoned help from his allies. He got ready also a large supply of arms…”

That the Phocians fought this war with mercenary forces is well attested. It seems they supplied their employees with arms financed by the pillaged temple treasures.

Not being familiar with the secondary writers you refer to, I would be interested to see what their arguments are - perhaps you can supply them?

That is a possibility. I shall have to search the Library of Paralus database… I may only have it photocopied. Really, though, the problem is that Josh – on school holidays – has destroyed my bandwidth. The ISP has us limited to 64 kps and, as I use webmail, uploading and sending documents is a bugger on this speed. I do not have Roy but I do have Paul McKechnie’s paper (as well as Cawkwell “Orthodoxy and Hoplites”).

Email me if you want the second, I’ll try the first shortly.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The Greeks were free men. They were just hired for their service. And their service was Cyrus' thus they're not Cyrus' but their arms are. It's a game of words.Also if the word "opla" is used then it can mean their whole panoply,yes,but also(and literally) means just their arms. This can even be limited in spears, javelins and i doubt about swords. Even if Cyrus had provided these,I think that the great king wouldn't bother to say that these belonged to his brother. As it's een said,this cost is minimal. Also,if they had been provided with arms and armour Xenophon would have spoken about its nature and he would specify when this would have happened. But he doesn't. It would be much easier if Cyrus provided them their high sallary and they did whatever they wanted with it. They were going to fight, good armour i think would have been in their priorities anyway. Even their crimson chitons could have been a result of them having more cash than any time before. But of course it's much easier to provide chitons than anything else. Especially if it is for a specific event.
Khairete
Giannis

[Kineas]

Giannis--why do you think opla refers to arms, instead of helmet and shield and armor? I'm pretty sure I can find an example of hopla "and arms' but I may be wrong, and I'm happy to be corrected.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Kineas,if you find any text that speaks of both "opla" AND arms i need to see it,because i wonder what would then be the word for "arms". Oplo till today means weapon. Its original early meaning as "tool" also suggests it then refered to weapons and then,metaphorically, and especially when used in plural,in the wholepanoply and every item in it. After all, for panoply there is also the wod "panoplia" which means literally "all weapons". Panoplia though can mean only the defensve equipment, since one can say "opla an panoplia". It sure is a loose term as you see, but oplon is the weapon.
If you ever come across that reference you remember about opla and "arms" please bother to post it because it would be very interesting. Actually,if it was ever usedm,the it would suggest the oposite,that opla means the defencive equipment,for which i have many doubts.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

Whilst doing some research on Anatolia’s history I came across the following Diodorus’ account of Leosthenes organising an alliance with the Anatolians (17.111.1-3):

The king had ordered all his satraps to dissolve their armies of mercenaries, and as they obeyed his instructions, all Asia was overrun with soldiers released from service and supporting themselves by plunder. Presently they began assembling from all directions at Taenarum in Laconia, whither came also such of the Persian satraps and generals as had survived, bringing their funds and their soldiers, so that they constituted a joint force. Ultimately they chose as supreme commander the Athenian Leosthenes, who was a man of unusually brilliant mind, and thoroughly opposed to the cause of Alexander. He conferred secretly with the council at Athens and was granted fifty talents to pay the troops and a stock of weapons sufficient to meet pressing needs.

Now the Greek is, of course, hoplon. The adjective associated with it is plethos which the LSJ translates as “a great number, multitude”. Seems a “great number” or “multitude” of these mercenary soldiers – so recently employed in the east – fronted for service in Greece minus their “tools” of war.

Perhaps they left them in the east? Perhaps they were ordered to becuase these implements were not their own or perhaps because dismissed mercenaries are less dangerous minus their tools of war?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

.......and a stock of weapons sufficient to meet pressing needs.

That does not sound like wholesale equipping, rather "pressing needs" means urgent/emergency needs, and is likely to refer to replacing only broken/worn out items.......

[Paralus]

Yes: interesting translation. The entire meaning of plethos is reduced to "sufficient to meet pressing needs". I believe the actual Greek is saying more about the numbers. The word is no different to our borrowing of it: plethora.

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to beleive it refers to those having been dismissed from Asia. It's not likely that Alexander wanted an army of unemployed mercenaries wandering about Asia. As I suggest perhaps they were dismissed and disarmed?