For most of the twentieth century, scholars believed that the Archaic period saw dramatic changes in Greek military practices, significant enough to merit the name “hoplite revolution” or at least “hoplite reform.” This revolution was thought to have had major social and political consequences, especially for the development of Greek democracy. In brief, the story went as follows. In Early Iron Age fighting, as described by Homer, aristocrats dominated the battlefield, fighting heroic duels in front of a large, but largely uninvolved, mass of supporters. The invention of new equipment, especially the double-handled hoplite shield, led to the adoption of a close-ordered formation, the hoplite phalanx, that relied not on individual exploits but on group solidarity. Aristocrats had to welcome anyone who could afford the new equipment into the phalanx, in order to make it as large as possible. Hoplites adopted new unwritten military protocols that made warfare more ritualistic and confined it largely to competitions for status rather than survival. In individual communities, hoplites gained a sense of group identity and demanded a greater voice in politics. In many early poleis they supported tyrants who broke the aristocrats' stranglehold on power and paved the way for democracy. In the last thirty years, scholars have challenged every part of this story, despite its undeniable explanatory power. In what follows, I will first explain the traditional view in more detail, and then look at the challenges.