Two bladed weapons

no worrys not my thread ..... it's bobknight's



but still a great question ........ is a double bladed spear a good weapon ? ? ? ?

yeah maybe in line formation but try thinking about it in a samurai or kung-fu/wushu battle that is more a series of individual duels against multiple opponents and maneuvering and agility are more important than a standing line or formation

Quote from wiki but I can't find any of my old books... wiki not being the best source but...

Hoplites in Greek society

Since hoplites supplied their 'panoply' (in this context meaning his armour and weapons) from their own personal equipment, they needed to be sufficiently wealthy to afford this. This would mean procuring a helmet, cuirass and greaves as well as a spear, sword and shield. As a result, hoplites were usually recruited from the middle-classes.

An illustration of this can be found in the Athenian class system of the Solon constitution. The four classes (in ascending order) were thetes, zeugites, hippeis and pentacosiomedimnoi (measured in produce per year of land). The three lower classes were drafted into the military according to what they could provide. The thetes rowed the vast Athenian fleet of ships; the hippeis, who could afford horses (an aristocratic animal, never used agriculturally) formed cavalry; and the zeugites fought as hoplites.

This can be compared to the military system used in the early-to-mid Roman Republic, wherein the Roman citizenry was divided into distinct social classes. These classes (excepting the landless proletarii) were used as different troop types; the lowest formed skirmishers (velites), the highest fought as cavalry (equites), and the middle classes, forming the bulk of the army, fought as heavy infantry. In this system, troops were expected to provide their own equipment, so only those rich enough to afford the armour and weapons could fight as heavy infantry. Indeed, the success of both the Greek hoplite armies, and the early Roman army can be ascribed to their middle class makeup. These were landed, relatively wealthy citizens with a vested interest in the defense of their state; they had much more to lose than the landless classes, and fought with proportional valour.[4]



* Pentacosiomedimni
o valued at 500 medimnoi of corn annually.
o eligible to serve as Strategoi (Generals)
* Hippeis
o valued at 300 medimnoi production annually.
o approximating to the mediaeval class of knights, they had enough wealth to equip themselves for the Cavalry
* Zeugitai
o valued at a 200 medimnoi production annually.
o approximating to the mediaeval class of Yeoman, they had enough wealth to equip themselves for the infantry (Hoplite)
* Thetes
o valued at less than 200 medimnoi annually
o manual workers or sharecroppers, they served voluntarily in the role of batman, or as auxiliaries armed for instance with the sling or as rowers in the Navy.

I was just looking at that article too, but I'd not put much stake in an article that says this:

"Hoplites also carried a short sword called a xiphos. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when spears broke, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. A disadvantage to the xiphos though was that it was extremely heavy and did not provide as much reach as most swords from that period."

That's utter semprinis if ya don't mind me sayin'

The article renders a disservice by stating things like "hoplites did this, hoplites wore that" when in reality there was an astronmical amount of variation between the hopites of each city state. The hoplites of tiny Aphipolis could never dream of taking on the mighty heroes of sparta. The article states in its opening that the most famous hoplites were the spartans and it can be infered from the rest of the article that most of what is mentioned is then about spartan hoplites who were undoubtebly better armed and trained considering war was their profession. Now as I said, I'm no expert on the Peloponnesian War but I seem to recall the state of lesbos being so poor after years of war that it could not reasonably be expected to field this "knights in shining armour" version of hoplites on the battlefield.


As for the snippet: I'd once again remind the author of that statement that essentially all male citizens served as hoplites fighting king darius of persia. In fact, most of the first persian war were fought with these peasant-hoplites, which acted as athens' professional army.

The spartans were one of the greatest fighting forces of the ancient world, the guys in 300 were pansies compared to the real thing. Spartan hoplites were very well armed and armoured and did indeed carry the xiphos. However Ramm is right (geez did I say that again?) in his assertion of the differences between the city states. You also have to remember that alot of the fighting that the athenians undertook for example was mostly sea battle. The athenians had the greatest navy of the ancient world at one stage, wiping out the persian navy with only a few boats. Armour is not good on boats, the first and most humiliating defeat the persians were ever handed was by badly equipped lightly armoured warriors from Athens.

Your both right about the difference between city states, which is why poorer regions were seasonally pillaged and plundered by rival city states in some cases. The Athenians did have a great navy for some time and the spartans were the greatest standing army in hellenic greece for centuries but...

the basic point is that without armor and weapons, you're not heavy infantry ( lower class/middle class/ upper class being irrelevant ) and cannot serve in a phalanx effectively. That's not to say that it never happened, it just wasn't S.O.P. Spartan, athenian, messinian, thebian, thracian... doesn't matter.

The definition of the word defines the man. If you are a poor city state and cannot field a holite army to protect yourself you would obviously still field what you can... unless it's easier to run as the athenians did when Xerxes burnt Athens to the ground.

As far as Athens fielding a unarmored Hoplite Army, Well... athens was one of the wealthier City states for quite some time and its weekend warriors were most definitely were able to afford what they needed once they got their act together.

what is cma it sounds fun

Actually they were really only wealthy after the SECOND defeat of the persians, fighting against xerxes.

I think what we're disagreeing on is the definition of hoplite - it does not mean "heavy infantry" it merely i s a derivative of the word hoplon meaning shield - which hoplites generally possesssed. I wouldn't be suprised if, at the height of the delian league, many athenians wore full panoplies, but even then hoplites bought what they could afford, and according to john keegan, breastplates were very rare in greek warfare even still.

We should stop talking to one another. You are infinately less insteresting when I'm not screaming at you ;D