² Connor, W R., ‘Early Greek warfare as symbolic expression’, Past and Present 119 (1988), 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Garlan, Yvon, War in the Ancient World: A Social History, trans. Janet, Lloyd (London, 1975), 15Google Scholar, and see also Finley, M. I. ‘War and empire’, in Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London, 1985), 67.Google Scholar

⁴ Garlan (n. 3), 16.

⁵ Momigliano, A., ‘On causes of war in ancient historiography’, in Studies in Historiography (London, 1966), 120Google Scholar; Finley (n. 3), 68 says that ‘it was universally accepted in antiquity that war is a natural condition of human society. Neither historians nor philosophers ever asked the question, Why war?’

⁶ Momigliano (n. 5), 124; Havelock, E., ‘War as a way of life in classical culture’, in Gareau, E. (ed.). Classical Values and the Modern World (Ottawa, 1972), 37.Google Scholar

⁷ Manicas, Peter T., ‘War, stasis, and Greek political thought’, SCSSH (1982), 673–4.Google Scholar Connor (n. 2), 6–8.

⁸ Connor (n. 2), 8.

⁹ Manicas (n. 7), 674.

¹⁰ Gellner, E., ‘An anthropological view of war and violence’, in Hinde, R. (ed.), The Institution of War (Basingstoke, 1991), 62.Google Scholar

¹¹ Gellner (n. 10), 63.

¹² Gellner borrowed this phrase from Andreski, S., Military Organization and Society (London, 19682).Google Scholar

¹³ Gellner (n. 10), 63. See also his Muslim Society (Cambridge, 1981), 20–1.

¹⁴ Gellner (n. 13, 1981), 93–4. This is when compared to state-societies in general. When compared to the modern industrial nation-state, another factor is added here, that is, that ‘by promising security and affluence for all those who acquire its culture in a literate manner, it can also secure popular loyalty’. Thus while in the agrarian state it is the centralized authority which commands loyalty, in the modern nation-state it is also ‘the nation’ and ‘the culture’ which secure loyalty through the affluence and security they promise.

¹⁵ See below n. 41.

¹⁶ Cohen, R., ‘State origins: a reappraisal’, in Henry, Claessen and Peter, Skalnik (edd.), The Early State (The Hague, 1978), 32–4Google Scholar; Cohen, R., ‘Introduction’, in Cohen, R. and Service, E. (edd.), Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution (Philadelphia, 1978), 2–5.Google Scholar I have modified Cohen's position slightly, limiting myself to traditional definitions of the state. Thus under (b) Cohen includes also state definitions based upon ‘information processing’ (‘Introduction’, p. 2). This is a recent development (p. 3), and as such non-traditional. Cohen adds also (c) ‘diagnostic traits’ which ‘lump together certain common traits found among early centralized states’ (p. 3), which he rightly rejects because ‘it is impossible to obtain a set of traits that applies to more than a few societies’ (p. 3).

¹⁷ Henry Claessen and Peter Skalnik, ‘The early state: theories and hypotheses’, in Claessen and Skalnik (n. 16), 20–1.

¹⁸ Gellner, E., Nations and Nationalism (Oxford, 1983), 9–10.Google Scholar Gellner's position is different from that of classical Marxism. According to the latter, stratification, or the emergence of classes, must precede that of the state. Thus, classical Marxism sees the state as a ‘third power’ and the prize of the class struggle between the ruling and the ruled. Gellner, on the other hand, identifies the ruling classes with the (agrarian) state and limits struggles for power to the ruling strata only (that is, in Marxist terms he identifies only ‘one power’: the ruling classes). see Mann, M., ‘States ancient and modern’, in States, War and Capitalism (Oxford, 1988), 48–9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Gellner (n. 18), 14; Gellner, E., Plough, Sword and Book: The Structure of Human History (London, 1991), 22.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cohen (n. 16,1978), 34.

²¹ Weber, M., Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 2 vols, ed. Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (Berkeley, 1978), 54.Google Scholar

²² Gellner (n. 18), 4.

²³ Osborne, R., Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge, 1985), 7Google Scholar; Starr, C. in his Individual and Community: The Rise of the Polis 800–500 B.C. (New York, 1986)Google Scholar says ‘one cannot avoid the term “state” in a political analysis, but the polis differed fundamentally from the abstract entity implied in the word as used from Machiavelli onward’ (p. 36). Starr doubts whether the Weberian definition of State is applicable to the polis (p. 44). However, he seems to see it as problematic in the case of the early polis only and not for the classical one (p. 45).

²⁴ Finley, M. I., Politics in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1983), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Badian, E., ‘Police’, in Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H. (edd.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford, 1970 ²), 851.Google Scholar

²⁶ Finley (n. 24), 18.

²⁷ Lintott, Andrew, Violence, Civil Strife and Revolution in the Classical City: 750–330 B.C. (London and Canberra, 1982), 26Google Scholar; Hunter, Virginia J., Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 B.c. (Princeton, 1994)Google Scholar, ch. 5, 140–3.

²⁸ Hunter (n. 27), 149.

²⁹ K Hunter (n. 27), 134–9. Lintott (n. 27).

³⁰ Todd, Stephen, ‘Penalty’, in the Glossary-Index of Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society, ed. Paul, Cartledge, Paul, Millett, and Stephen, Todd (Cambridge, 1990), 234.Google Scholar

³¹ Also a man condemned to pay a fine could face imprisonment until he paid it. Macdowell, Douglas M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), 257.Google Scholar

³² Hansen, M. H., Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes (Odense, 1976), 9–25.Google Scholar However, ephegesis was a process (rarely mentioned by the sources) in which arrest was carried out by the Eleven probably because the prosecutor lacked the power to make the arrest (ibid., 24–7). Hunter (n. 27), 134–9.

³³ Badian (n. 25). Some refer to the krupteia as a ‘secret police’. Here selected young Spartans were terrorizing the helots by murdering secretly any supposedly dangerous helot. This was probably a sort of initiation rite. The krupteia was used against the Helots and not against the Spartiates. Badian, ibid.; Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London and Baltimore, 1987), 30–2.Google Scholar However, Sparta was not a typical polis since it was a community of professional warriors.

³⁴ M A. W. Gomme and R. J. Hopper, ‘Population’, OCD², 862.

³⁵ Finley (n. 24), 24.

³⁶ Finley, M. I., The Ancient Greeks (Harmondsworth, 1977), 75.Google Scholar

³⁷ This is the traditional view. However, Hansen argues that the dikasteria, the lawcourts, were a differentiated body. See, for instance, Hansen, M. H., ‘Demos, ekklesia, and dikasterion: a reply to Martin Ostwald and Josiah Ober’, Classica et Mediaevalia 40 (1989), 102.Google Scholar

³⁸ Finley (n. 36), 75.

³⁹ Osborne (n. 23), 9.

⁴⁰ Finley, M. I., Democracy Ancient and Modern (London, 1985 ²), 24.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Gellner (n. 10), 64; Gellner (n. 13,1981), 24–5; Gellner (n. 19, 1991), 152.

⁴² Grote, G., History of Greece, vol. 2 (London, 1862), 265–6.Google ScholarFustel De Coulanges, N. D. (1864), The Ancient City: A Study on Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Baltimore, 1980), 92–112Google Scholar, esp. 109–12. Morgan, Lewis Henry (1877), Ancient Society (Cambridge, MA, 1964).Google Scholar

⁴³ Roussel, D., Tribu el cité: études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cites grecques aux époques archaïque et classique (Paris, 1976).CrossRefGoogle ScholarBourriot, F., Recherches sur la nature du genos: étude d'histoire sociale Athénienne—périodes archaïque et classique (Lille and Paris, 1976).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Donlan, Walter, ‘The social groups of dark age Greece’, Classical Philology 80 (1985), 295–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Roussel (n. 43), 99–103.

⁴⁵ Smith, Richard C., ‘The clans of Athens and the historiography of the archaic period’, Classical Views n.s. 4 (1985), 53.Google Scholar See also Bourriot (n. 43), 240–300; Roussel (n. 43), 30–1. These features formed the traditional nineteenth-century notion of the tribal community based on the definition of the genos originally formulated by George Grote and modified by Lewis Morgan.

⁴⁶ Bourriot (n. 43), 850–99; Smith (n. 45), 54–5.

⁴⁷ Finley (n. 24), 44–5. See also Finley, , ‘Max Weber and the Greek city-state’, in Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London, 1985), p. 91Google Scholar; Murray, O., ‘Cities of reason’, in Oswyn, Murray and Simon, Price (edd.), The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander (Oxford, 1990), 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See note 27 above.

⁴⁹ Wheeler, Marcus, ‘Aristotle's analysis of the nature of political struggle’, in Barnes, J., Schofield, M., and Sorabji, R. (edd.) Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2: Ethics and Politics (London, 1977), 168.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For a more detailed discussion of the relation between stasis and the statelessness of the polis, see Berent, M., ‘Stasis, or the Greek invention of polities’, History of Political Thought 19 (1998), 331–62.Google Scholar For a more detailed comparison between the polis and the tribe, see ibid., 344–8.

⁵¹ A case against citizens' monopoly of violence could be made by the fact that non-citizens were sometimes employed as hoplites. Nevertheless, this employment created pressures for enfranchisement (see below).

⁵² see Morris, Ian, ‘The early Polis as a city and state’, in John, Rich and Andrew, Wallace-Hadrill (edd.) City and Country in the Ancient World (London, 1991), 46–9.Google Scholar

⁵³ W. G. Runciman, ‘Doomed to extinction: the polis as an evolutionary dead end’, in Murray and Price (n. 47), 348 (emphasis added).

⁵⁴ Though there were public slaves in Athens, the demosioi, who helped the magistrates to perform their public duties and did other public works. Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure Principles and Ideology (Oxford, 1991), 123–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The traditional translations are imbued with statism, so that Shorey, P. translates ‘because the entire state is ready to defend each citizen’ (Loeb edn, London, 1935)Google Scholar and Desmond Lee translates ‘because the individual has the support of society as a whole’. What is missing is the notion of self-help which is projected by the verb boethein. Boe means a shout and also a cry for help. The boe was a main way of calling the neighbours for help and people were supposed to run in response to a cry for help. The verb boethein became one of the standard Greek words for giving assistance. See Lintott (n. 27), 18–20.

⁵⁶ Plato, Republic 578d-e (emphasis added), trans. Desmond Lee (Harmondsworth, 1974).

⁵⁷ Xen. Hiero 4.3. And see Fisher, N. R. E., Slavery in Classical Greece (London, 1993), 71–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Figueira, Thomas J., ‘A typology of social conflict in Greek poleis’, in Molho, A., Raaflaub, K., and Emlen, J. (edd.), City-States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy (Stuttgart, 1991), 302.Google Scholar See also Vidal-Naquet, P., ‘Were Greek slaves a class?’, in The Black Hunter [1981], trans. Andrew, Szegedy-Maszak (Baltimore and London, 1986), 159–67.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cartledge, Paul, ‘Rebels and sambos in classical Greece’, in Cartledge, P. and Harvey, F. D. (edd.), Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to G. E. M. de Ste Croix on His 75th Birthday (Exeter and London, 1985), 46.Google ScholarGarlan, in his Slavery in Ancient Greece (Ithaca, NY and London, 1988)Google Scholar, ch. 2, classifies them as ‘community slaves’. Since these were actually communities many scholars (e.g. de Ste Croix in his Class Struggle) find it helpful to classify them as ‘state-serfs’ rather them as slaves: Fisher (n. 57), 23–4.

⁶⁰ Aristotle, Politics 7.10, 1330a24–9 (tran Barker, S. Ernest, The Politics of Aristotle [Oxford, 1946])Google Scholar; Plato, (Laws 111) says that ‘The frequent and repeated revolts in Messenia, and in states where people possess a lot of slaves who all speak the same language, have shown the evils of the system often enough … if the slaves are to submit to their condition without giving trouble, they should not all come from the same country or speak the same tongue, as far as it can be arranged’ (trans. Saunders, Trevor J. [Harmondsworth, 1970])Google Scholar, and see Garlan (n. 59), 177–83.

⁶¹ Miers, S. and Kopytoff, I., ‘African “slavery” as an institution of marginality’, in Miers, S. and Kopytoff, I. (edd.), Slavery in Africa: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (Madison, WI, 1977), 15–16.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., 19–26.

⁶³ Fisher (n. 57), 67–70.

⁶⁴ Morris, I., Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Polis (Cambridge, 1987), 174.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ There seem to have been such communities on the island of Crete, in Thessaly, Heraclea on the Black Sea, Syracuse, and a few others. See Fisher (n. 57), 32–3.

⁶⁶ Rihll, Tracy, ‘War, slavery, and settlement in early Greece’, in Rich, J. and Shipley, G. (edd.), War and Society in the Greek World (London, 1993), 92–105.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Fisher (n. 57), 34–6; Cartledge, P., The Greeks (Oxford, 1993), 135.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ A. M. Khazanov ‘Some theoretical problems of the study of the early state’, in Claessen and Skalnik (n. 16), 87. Khazanov does not consider the Greek ‘state’ to be an early state but ‘the next, higher state of development’ (p. 77).

⁶⁹ Hindess, B. and Hirst, P., Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production (London, 1985), 86–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ De Ste Croix, G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London, 1981), 287.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., 44.

⁷² Ibid., 206.

⁷³ Austin, M. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction (London, 1977), 121.Google Scholar By contrast there was no hesitation in taxing non-citizens. Thus metics in Athens had to pay regularly a special tax, the metoikion, which was admittedly moderate, but which symbolized their inferior status as compared with citizens (ibid.) Although the metoikion might have been economically important for the polis, the fact that it was moderate and symbolic meant probably that it did not bear heavily upon the metics (who could freely migrate if they felt attacked). Indirect taxes (usually on trade) were frequently resorted to and were one of the main sources of revenue. Those usually did not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens and even between Greeks and non-Greeks (ibid., 122–3).

⁷⁴ De Ste Croix (n. 70), 207–8.

⁷⁵ Paul Millett, ‘Warfare, economy and democracy in classical Athens’, in Rich and Shipley (n. 66), 184; Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, part 5 (Berkeley, 1991), 473–485.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, part 1 (Berkeley, 1971), 82–4Google Scholar; id. (n. 75), 363–401, 438–504.

⁷⁷ Pritchett (n. 75), 458–9. Another matter is the fact that one of the prime targets of war in ancient Greece had been the destruction of crops and other agricultural resources. See L. Foxhall ‘Farming and fighting in ancient Greece’, in Rich and Shipley (n. 66), 134–6. Thus long invasions did not affect all alike—farmers were hit harder than those without land and some farmers were hit harder than others (pp. 142–3.) See also Osborne, R., Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and its Countryside (London, 1987), 154.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Gouldner, A., Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory (London, 1965), 142–3Google Scholar; Finley, M. I. ‘The Athenian empire: a balance sheet’ [1978]Google Scholar, repr. in Finley, M. I., Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Shaw, Brent D. and Sailer, Richard P. (London, 1981), 58–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Aristotle, Politics 5.6, 1306a20–26 [trans. Barker (n. 60)], and see also Plato, Republic 551e.

⁸⁰ Andrewes, A., ‘Spartan imperialism?’, in Garnsey, P. and Whittaker, C. R. (edd.), Imperialism in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1978), 91–102.Google Scholar Cartledge (n. 33), 15.

⁸¹ Plato, Republic 372e-374a (emphasis added) [trans. Lee (n. 56)]. See also discussion in Gellner (n. 13, 1981), 16–18.

⁸² There is a similar argument in the Phaedo 66c: wars are fought for wealth, which we need only for our slavish attention to the body. see Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1975), 338Google Scholar n.l and 448.

⁸³ It could be that Plato relies here on what he sees as the rules of war among Greeks (as distinguished from wars between Greeks and non-Greeks) which prohibited these actions. See Republic 469c–471c.

⁸⁴ Gellner (n. 13,1981), 16–21.

⁸⁵ Rihll (n. 66), 87.

⁸⁶ Plato, Phaedo 66c.

⁸⁷ Politics 1.8, 1256bl, 1256b23.

⁸⁸ Rihll (n. 66), 105. Millett (n. 75), 183–4 says ‘As far as the Greek themselves were concerned warfare was conceived as potentially profitable.’

⁸⁹ Hugh Bowden, ‘Hoplites and Homer: warfare, hero cult, and ideology of the polis’, in Rich and Shipley (n. 66), 48.

⁹⁰ Austin and Vidal-Naquet (n. 73), p. 13.

⁹¹ Pritchett (n. 75), 445–53; Rihll (n. 66), 92–100.

⁹² Pritchett (n. 76, 1971), 82; Rihll (n. 66), 79.

⁹³ Bolkestein, H., Economic Life in Greece's Golden Age (Leiden, 1958), 140–1.Google Scholar And see also Pritchett (n. 76, 1971), 53–84.

⁹⁴ Finley, M. I., ‘Polities’, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), The Legacy of Greece: A New Appraisal (Oxford, 1981), 33.Google Scholar However, it must be emphasized that war which was directed or caused by competition for markets or for trading advantage or motivated by other forms of mercantile or capitalistic imperialism was simply not possible and such explanations should be dismissed as ‘anachronisms’. Manicas (n. 7), 679–80. See also Finley, M. I., The Ancient Economy (London, 1985 ²)Google Scholar, ch. 6, esp.158–9.

⁹⁵ Sahlins, M., Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968), 45.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Gouldner (n. 78), 142–3; Finley (n. 78), 58–9.

⁹⁷ Gallie, W. B., Understanding War (London, 1991), 31.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Gellner (n. 13,1981), 39.

⁹⁹ Ibid., 93–4.

¹⁰⁰ Meier, Christian, The Greek Discovery of Politics, trans David, McLintock (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 117.Google Scholar See also Gouldner (n. 78), 143–4; Manville, Philip Brook, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens (Princeton, NJ, 1990), 87.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Gellner(n. 13, 1981), 27.

¹⁰² Burkert, Walter, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, trans. Peter, Bing (Berkeley, 1983), 47.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Gouldner (n. 78), 237.

¹⁰⁴ Thuc. 6.18. See also Havelock (n. 6), 75.

¹⁰⁵ Politics 7.14, 1334a5–10.

¹⁰⁶ Politics 7.H, 1333b5.

¹⁰⁷ Khaldun, Ibn, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz, Rosenthal, abridged and ed. Dawood, N. J. (London, 1967), 97–100Google Scholar; Gellner (n. 13,1981), 16–28.

¹⁰⁸ See Gellner (n. 13, 1981), 17–19; H. R.Trevor-Roper, Historical Essays (London, 1957), 29.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Weber (n. 21), 1359–63. See also Bryant, J. M., ‘Military technology and socio-cultural change in the ancient Greek city’, Sociological Review 38 (1990), 484–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bryant notes that Marx had fully anticipated Weber on this connection between militarism and social organization.

¹¹⁰ Gellner (n. 13, 1981), 189–90.

¹¹¹ Hanson, V D., The Western Way of War Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (London, 1989), 119.Google Scholar

¹¹² Ibid., 121.

¹¹³ Ibid., 25–6, 30–1. See also Adcock, F. E., The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (Berkeley, 1957), 4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Yet not entirely neglected. Thus Cartledge points at the ‘levelling effect’ of fighting in phalanxes. See Cartledge (n. 33), 44.

¹¹⁵ Andreski (n. 12), 139.

¹¹⁶ Connor (n. 2), 21–4.

¹¹⁷ Hanson, , ‘The ideology of hoplite battle, ancient and modern’, in Hanson, V. D. (ed.) Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London, 1991), 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁸ Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), 253–4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Meier (n. 100), 61.

¹²⁰ Ehrenberg, Thus, using traditional ‘statist’ language says that ‘regional connections of kinsfolk and clans were decisively destroyed by Cleisthenes’ reforms (emphasis added) (The Greek State [London, 1969 ²], 29).Google Scholar However, others thought they had to account for this peaceful transition. Andrewes, A. claims that ‘the general impression remains that clans and phratries had already ceased to play a part, as such, in Athenian politics, well before the reform of Cleisthenes in 507’ (The Greeks [London, 1967], 82).Google Scholar Another possibility is that the new cults supplemented rather then replaced the old one, as the genos and phratry seemed to have been little affected by the reforms. See E. Kearns, ‘Religious structures after Cleisthenes’, in Cartledge and Harvey (n. 59), 204–7.

¹²¹ Actually Cleisthenes created a new army rather than rearranged an old one. Van Effenterre, H. has pointed out that while the political aspect of the Cleisthenes reforms has been thoroughly emphasized the military aspect has been neglected (‘Clisthéne et les mesures de mobilisation’, REG 89 [1976], 1–3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Effenterre points to the need to create a new army after the reign of the Peisistratids who disarmed the population and relied upon mercenaries (pp. 3–4). He concludes that Cleisthenes’ reform was simultaneously a political measure and a military measure (p. 16), and a successful one considering the victories both against Greek neighbours and in the Persian wars. However, he still remains within the mainstream which sees the army as a reflection of the reform and not also as an instrument for bringing it about. Siewert, on the other hand, seems to belittle the political motives of the reform and see the latter as a largely military reorganization (Die Trityyen Attikas und die Heeresreform des Kleisthenes [Munich, 1982]).Google Scholar However, in stateless communities with a high military participation ratio, that is, where almost everybody carries arms in wartime, it is impossible to separate the military from the political.

¹²² Bowden (n. 89), 47.

¹²³ Vernant, J. P. (ed.), Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne (Paris and La Haye, 1968), 18.Google Scholar For the same position, see M. Detienne, ‘La phalange: problemes et controverses’, ibid., 140–2.

¹²⁴ Humphreys, S. C., JHS 91 (1971), 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁵ See, for instance, J.-P. Vernant (n. 123), 19–20.

¹²⁶ Snodgrass, A., ‘The hoplite reform and history’, JHS 85 (1965), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁷ Cartledge, P., ‘Hoplites and heroes: Sparta's contribution to the technique of ancient warfare’, JHS 97 (1977), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁸ Finley (n. 36), 56; cf. his Authority and Legitimacy in the Classical City State (Copenhagen, 1982), 3–4; Hansen, M. H., ‘The polis as an urban centre. The literary and epigraphical evidence’, CPC Papers 4 (Copenhagen, 1997), 9–86.Google Scholar For the non-territorial definition of stateless tribal communities, see Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Introduction to African Political Systems, ed. Fortes, M. and Pritchard, E. E. Evans (Oxford, 1940), 10–11Google Scholar; Khazanov, A., Nomads and the Outside World (Cambridge, 1984), 138Google Scholar, 149–51. Gellner(n. 13, 1981), 34.

¹²⁹ M. H. Hansen (n. 54), 58–9 and 61–4.

¹³⁰ Bowden (n. 89), 48.

¹³¹ Some without greaves and others without corselets, or using leather helmets instead of bronze, or shields of different shape and materials. Salmon, J., ‘Political hoplites?’ JHS 97 (1977), 90–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bowden (n. 89), 48–9.

¹³² Raaflaub, Kurt A., ‘Soldiers, citizens and the evolution of the early greek polis’, in Mytchell, Lynette G. and Rhodes, P. J. (edd.), The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece (London, 1997), 54.Google Scholar Walter Donlan, ‘The relation of power in the pre-state and early-state polities’, ibid., 45–6. Lin Foxhall, ‘A view from the top: evaluating the Solonian property classes’, ibid., 131.

¹³³ Snodgrass, A., ‘The rise of the polis: the archaeological evidence’, in Hansen, M. H. (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen, 1993), 35.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge, 1987), 162–5.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Snodgrass, A., Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (London, 1980), 160–1Google Scholar; Snodgrass (n. 133), 32–3.

¹³⁶ Herman (n. 134), 164.

¹³⁷ Starr (n. 23), 43–5.

¹³⁸ Snodgrass (n. 133), 39.

¹³⁹ Aristotle, Politics 4.10, 1297b25–30 (trans. Barker [n. 60]).

¹⁴⁰ Bowden(n.89),61.

¹⁴¹ Cartledge (n. 127), 18.

¹⁴² Ibid.

¹⁴³ Snodgrass (n. 126), 110.

¹⁴⁴ Snodgrass (n. 126), 84–5.

¹⁴⁵ Cartledge (n. 127), 19–20.

¹⁴⁶ Ibid., 18.

¹⁴⁷ Hanson(n. 111), 9–18.

¹⁴⁸ Cartledge (n. 33), 43.

¹⁴⁹ Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, part 4 (Berkeley, 1985), 33.Google Scholar See also Morris (n. 64), 196–204.

¹⁵⁰ Pritchett (n. 149), 44.

¹⁵¹ Raaflaub (n. 132), 49–57.

¹⁵² Hanson, V. D., The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (New York, 1995), 238.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ On Early Iron Age pastoralism, see Snodgrass (n. 135), 190–209.

¹⁵⁴ Hanson (n. 152), 223.

¹⁵⁵ Khazanov (n. 128), 149–50.

¹⁵⁶ Aristotle, Politics 4.10, 1297b15–24.

¹⁵⁷ Snodgrass(n. 126), 114.

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., 113; Cartledge (n. 127), 23. Yet Snodgrass (n. 135), 98 seems to reject the existence of ‘a phase of true cavalry warfare, in which the warrior actually fought from horseback’. See also Greenhalgh, P. A. L., Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Age (Cambridge, 1973), 75–8,146Google Scholar, who maintains that the hippeis of the Geometric Age communities to whom Aristotle referred as having a military and political dominance were not cavalrymen, but heavy-armed foot-soldiers who used their horses for transport. Greenhalgh suggests that before the so-called ‘hoplite reform’, battles were less organized affairs and success depended far more on individual skill and that the creation of the phalanx was prompted by technological inventions (such as the double-grip shield). The (mounted) pre-hoplite (still a mounted infantryman) used his horse for transportation to the battlefield and also to move around in the battle, while after the invention of the phalanx the hoplite could ride to battle but not use his horse to move about during the engagements between the phalanxes (pp. 70–4, 146). Van Wees suggests that the warchariots in Homer were used to transfer the warrior to the battlefield and to move within the battle, yet normally, ‘he at some point “jumps off” and “mingles with the promakhof”, on foot’ (‘The Homeric way of war: the Iliad and the hoplite phalanx (I)’, Greece and Rome 41 [1994], 9–10).

¹⁵⁹ Detienne(n. 123), 134–8.

¹⁶⁰ Gellner (n. 13, 1981), 34. For the non-territorial definition of the Greek polis, see notes 128 and 129 above.

¹⁶¹ Kurt Raaflaub, ‘City-state, territory, and empire in classical antiquity’, in Molho, A., Raaflaub, K., and Emlen, J. (edd.), City-States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy (Stuttgart, 1991), 566.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Hdt. 8.61–3. See discussion in Manville (n. 100), 38–40.

¹⁶³ P. Vidal-Naquet quoting Hippolyte Taine in ‘The tradition of the Athenian Hoplite’ (n. 58), 86 (an earlier version, ‘La tradition de Phoplite Athenien’ was published in Vernant [n. 123], 161–81). Another example is Thuc. 7.77.7 where Nicias, at the moment of retreat in Sicily, says to the Athenian army ‘Reflect that you yourselves, wherever you settle down, are a city already’. See C. Mossé, ‘Le rôle politique des armées dans le monde Grec à l'époque classique’, in Vernant (n. 123), 222.

¹⁶⁴ P. Cartledge, ‘La nascita degli opliti e l'organizzazione militare’, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci, vol. 2. And see also Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, vol. 4 (Amsterdam, 1991), 181–90.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Agrarianism: Hanson (n. 152). Demography: Snodgrass, , Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State (Cambridge, inaugural lecture, 1977)Google Scholar; modified by I. Morris (n. 64), 156–9.

¹⁶⁶ Hans Van Wees, Homeric Warfare, in Morris and Powell (n. 166), 687–9.

¹⁶⁷ Osborne, R., Greece in the Making, 1200–479 B.C. (London, 1996), 150.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Raaflaub, K., ‘Homeric society’, in Ian, Morris and Barry, Powell (edd.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden, 1997), 645–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Bowden (n. 89), 61.

¹⁷⁰ Osborne (n. 167), 150.

¹⁷¹ As Vidal-Naquet (n. 163), 86 points out, also in the classical period ‘the army and the city were modeled on the polis. This was obvious at Salamis, where it was not the fleet that saved the city but the city that took up residence on the ships.’

¹⁷² For details of the hoplite protocol, see Hanson (n. 111), 9–18.

¹⁷³ Ibid., 25.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., 31.

¹⁷⁵ Adcock (n. 113), 4.

¹⁷⁶ The evidence in these matters seems at first glance to conflict. Connor (n. 2), 15, n. 59 suggests that much of the evidence used to suggest that Greeks enslaved other Greeks after battles in fact applies to sieges and that siege warfare was governed by a radically different code from that which applied to hoplite battles. A victorious besieger of a city was allowed to treat the captives as he saw fit. This could result in the death of military-age men and the enslavement of women and children. And see also Rihll (n. 66), 85.

¹⁷⁷ Connor (n. 2), 16.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., 21. Indeed M. Wight considers ancient Greece to constitute the first ‘states-system’ which he roughly defined as ‘a federation of a number of states with the object of preserving the actual balance of power’ (Systems of States [Leicester, 1977], 21–2).

¹⁷⁹ Adcock (n. 113), 11–12; Hanson (n. 111), 37.

¹⁸⁰ Hanson(n. 111), 37.

¹⁸¹ Alastair Jackson, ‘War and raids in the world of Odysseus’, in Rich and Shipley (n. 66), 64–76. Rihll (n. 66), 79–80.

¹⁸² See notes 91 and 176 above.

¹⁸³ Hanson (n. 152), 357–65.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., 369–375.

¹⁸⁵ Sahlins (n. 95), 6–7; Khazanov (n. 68), 89–90; Crone, Patricia, ‘The tribe and the state’, in Hall, John A. (ed.), States in History (Oxford, 1986), 49–50.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Crone (n. 185).

¹⁸⁷ See note 53.

¹⁸⁸ Cartledge, P., ‘Classical Greek agriculture II: two more alternative views’, Journal of Peasant Studies 23 (1995), 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Hanson (n. 152), 353.

¹⁹⁰ Runciman (n. 53), 353–356.

¹⁹¹ See note 162.

¹⁹² Hanson (n. 152), 389.

¹⁹³ Khazanov(n. 128), 296. cf. 228–9. Gellner, ‘Foreword' ibid., xiii-xv, xxv.

¹⁹⁴ Gellner (n. 18), 13–14; Finley, M. I., ‘The ancient Greeks and their nation’, in The Use and Abuse of History (Hanaondsworth, 1990), 120–33.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Gellner (n. 19, 1991), 87. cf. 84–90.