A Song of Warfare and Heroic Wrath

[Late geometric amphora depicting archers against slingers, Archaeological Museum, Parikia, Paros]

A Song of Warfare and Heroic Wrath

by Chrysovalantis Tampakakis

Academy of Hoplomachia

Iliad. The song of a goddess through the words of a poet that speaks of the fury of gods and that of a demigod; a divine wrath that through pestilence, war and fire sent many a brave soul hurrying down to Hades. During the last few weeks of the 10-year Achaean expedition to Ilium, the city of Troy becomes witness of the cruel deaths of hundreds of Trojan and Danaan heroes. The gods like shooting stars descend from Olympus to the aid of their beloved ones but nothing can cease the wrath of Achilles as he hews down the Trojans – smiting them with his mighty sword – until river Xanthus runs red with blood and prince Hector under his feet lies fallen.

Within the thousands of verses that compose the Iliad one can clearly see a poetic nostalgia for Greece’s Mycenaean Palatial past. A glorious past when warlike men seized immortality through fame earned in victorious battles (Kleos) or through the heroic acceptance of their fated death (Kēr Thanatoio). Death and Warfare are two of the major themes presented in Homer’s song of Mēnis (wrath) and they could never be better portrayed than through the descriptions of weapon strikes and traumas.

The battle epic is famous for the prodigious number of deaths mentioned in it and the elaborate way they are described. But what is more interesting is Homer’s remarkably realistic way of describing weapon attacks and fatal and nonfatal injuries. Despite the regularity of divine intervention and the dramatic finale of many battle scenes presented in a formulaic style – like the classic patterns that a lot of times follow a killing blow: ”Thereon darkness veiled his eyes – he fell heavily with a thud – his panoply clanged upon him’‘ – when it comes to wounds and blows, the poet takes off the suit of the aoidos (singer) and puts on that of the hoplomachos. His unique way of manipulating the core elements that compose a realistic and vivid battle scene indicates that we most possibly have to deal with an expert in warfare; and actually, not only in one, but in many types of warfare.

First of all, he is very well acquainted with human anatomy and most of times he uses such knowledge to emphasize on the real causes of injury and death without merely dramatizing gory fatalities. He speaks about the destruction of muscles and bones, tendons and arteries and that of vital organs like the liver and the stomach. In most cases, a man does not die because he was simply speared on his chest but because someone ”hurled his spear towards his chest just above the nipple and its bronze point fixed itself in his lungs. Then he came close up to him, plucked the heavy spear from his chest and drawing his sharp sword, smote him in the middle of his belly taking his life away” (Thoas kills Peirous, Rh. IV. 527-531).

Likewise, in many cases a hero does not fall on his knees heavily injured because he simply received a heavy stone to his hip but because the enemy ”took a huge stone in his hand, a weight to over-task two of the strongest men of our time; yet he brandished the stone with ease on his own and threw it on his hip where the femur rolls in his cavity, which we call the cotyloid cavity. He crushed the cup-bone and both tendons were ruptured as the rugged stone tore his flesh away”  (Diomedes wounds Aeneas, Rh. V. 302-310).

Then, he has a very realistic and circumspect approach in describing weapon strikes against shields and armor. Despite the fact that many heroes have godlike strength and skills, they do not always have an easy time achieving a penetrating hit. Hector thrusts his spear against Aias of Telamon but he ”hit the center of his shield and failed to pierce it as the spear-tip bent on it” (Rh. VII. 258-259). Iphidamas thrusts his spear just below the corselet of Agamemnon on his belt  ”and he pushed strongly with his heavy arm but failed to pierce the broidered girdle as the spear-tip was pressed against the silver and was turned aside as though it had been lead” (Rh. XI. 234-237). Helenus aims an arrow at Menelaus and ”hits his hollow breast-plate but the bitter shaft glanced off wide” (Rh. XIII. 586-587) – and these are but a few of the many situations where ”bronze was deflected by bronze” (πλάγχθη δ᾽ ἀπὸ χαλκόφι χαλκός).

Sometimes swords and spears even break when hitting on shields and armor. Meriones hurls his spear against Deiphobus ”towards his all-round, ox-hide covered shield; but he was far from piercing it for the long spear broke where the spear-head was attached” (Rh. XIII. 160-162). Lycon attacks Peneleus with his sword and as his strike hits the crest of his helmet ”the phasganon (sword) broke next to the hilt” (Rh. XVI. 338-339). The poet not only emphasizes on the risk of damaging or breaking your weapon when you hit directly on bronze, but he also gives us detail on certain parts where – as it seems –  weapons more often broke.

Lastly, while in his descriptions of mass combat he presents military tactics primarily based on what we call today ‘volley fire’, where phalanxes break the lines of other phalanxes with a relentless volley of arrows, spears and javelins and numerous men fall ”pierced through their shields” (πολλοὶ δὲ διαμπερὲς ἀσπίδος αὐτῆς), when it comes to one-on-one encounters the promachoi (first-line champions) do not simply rely upon the remarkable piercing ability of their heavy spears. Instead, they often seek an opportunity to hit when the flanks of their opponents  are exposed next to their shield or aim at body parts not protected by a piece of armor.

Menelaus spears Thoas on the chest ”as it was exposed near the rim of his shield” (Rh. XVI. 311-312) and Elephenor, while dragging the dead body of Echepolus to strip him of his armor, is slain by the spear of Agenor who pierced him ”as he stooped and his flank was exposed next to his shield” (Rh. IV. 467-469). Hector draws his sword and rushes upon Achilles who awaits him spear in hand ”studying his fair flesh and seeking where it was vulnerable most as it was fully covered by the fine bronze panoply which he had spoiled after defeating Patroclus; save only the throat where the collar bones divide the neck from the shoulders; where for the soul comes the quickest of deaths” (ἵνα τε ψυχῆς ὤκιστος ὄλεθρος/Rh. XXII. 321-325).

This concept of seizing the opportunity and striking when the opponent leaves an opening, rather than rushing to hurl a spear against one who is fully covered behind his shield, shows that the poet, if not an experienced warrior himself, was definitely pretty well informed in tactics of close combat. Even though his Iliad is not a pure military treatise, the plethora of information on military tactics it contains prove that it has a lot in common with one.

Sometimes such information is given in an indirect way, like in rhapsody XI where Aias of Telamon stands single-handed midway between the Trojans and the Achaeans and has to retreat fast making his way to the ships. While in several parts of the Iliad it is mentioned that one should never turn his back to his enemies retreating in panic, Aias is forced to do so – and he does so, but in a brilliant way ”casting his seven-fold ox-hide shield on his back” (Rh. XI. 545) and the Trojans that chased him thrusting with ”their spears they smote the center of his shield” (Rh. XI. 565); and so he managed to escape unharmed.

Other times information is given in a very straight and direct way, like in rhapsody IV 301-309 where old Nestor gives advice to the charioteers of his army on how they shall keep the unity of their lines and deliver a proper and powerful cavalry charge, based on the ”wisdom and discipline their forefathers possessed”. And this statement that comes from the most experienced in warfare Achaean king is not made at haphazard, but as it seems, it serves as a prelude to the battles and the killing sprees that follow, presented through a series of individual deaths (beginning with that of Echepolus within the very same rhapsody, verses 457-462).

Ὧδε καὶ οἱ πρότεροι πόλεας καὶ τείχε᾽ ἐπόρθεον
τόνδε νόον καὶ θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔχοντες

This is the way our forefathers conquered cities and castles

and such was the wisdom and discipline they possessed

And it sounds like it is not Nestor who speaks to his cavalry but the ancient bard himself to the youth who have gathered around him to listen about their nation’s martial heritage. ”For to counsel youth is the old men’s province” (κελεύσω βουλῇ καὶ μύθοισι· τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ γερόντων/Nestor to Agamemnon, Rh. IV. 322-323). Even though the author (or authors if you prefer) is not speaking about a war he has seen with his own eyes, as he mentions in rhapsody II (of such glory we have only heard about and not seen/ ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν), he nevertheless has a very specific concept of fighting in his mind when describing battle events. While it is still debated whether this type of warfare reflects that of the time period of the Trojan war or that of Homer’s age, or is even a mix of these two, undoubtedly in its total it constitutes one solid type of warfare, which I would call Homeric Warfare.

As far as the mass combat tactics are depicted in Iliad, they can be broken in three phases based on the way they are described. In the first phase we have the ‘cavalry charge’ where chariots meet chariots midway between the opposing armies that march one against the other. After the kings and princes of either side inflict as much damage as they can, they dismount and take place to the first lines of the phalanxes serving them as promachoi, while their charioteers wait to the side or covered behind the infantry units. In this second phase there is no pushing of shields in close combat described between the first ranks of the opposing heavy infantry units but as mentioned before, an effort to break the unity of the enemy phalanxes through ‘volleys of fire’ that come from both the supporting light infantry units hurling javelins and shooting arrows and the heavy infantry (including the promachoi) hurling their heavy spears. If a phalanx is broken suffering a severe amount of losses and the remaining of its numbers scatter in panic, they come to the third phase where the winning side rushes for a chase to eliminate them. The promachoi either charge on foot with spear, sword or axe in hand, or as described in many cases they jump again on their chariots and a hunt begins where ”foot-soldiers slaughter foot-soldiers as they take to flight and cavalry does the like to cavalry” (πεζοὶ μὲν πεζοὺς ὄλεκον φεύγοντας ἀνάγκῃ,
ἱππεῖς δ᾽ ἱππῆας/ Rh. XI. 150-151).

It is in this third phase where most of individual deaths mentioned in Iliad occur and this is the root of all misconceptions on Homeric warfare. Many have expressed the opinion that Homer presents a way of fighting based on one-on-one encounters where a kind of ‘set ritual’ must be followed: The opposing noble heroes standing face to face in the first lines of their armies begin to provoke each other challenging them to personal duel as they scream their names and the glorious lineages they descent from to intimidate them – more like Ambrones provoking the Ligurian Roman auxiliaries at the battle of Aquae Sextiae, rather than how truly the Achaeans fought against Trojans. This is definitely what is NOT happening in the Iliad.

Most of times heroes face their adversaries one-on-one, two-on-one or two-on-two when the ranks are broken and are widely scattered throughout the field (ἔνθα δ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἕλεν ἄνδρα κεδασθείσης ὑσμίνης ἡγεμόνων/Rh. XVI. 306-307); in a phase where heavy infantry and cavalry cannot be supported properly by light infantry and archers. In such cases, the poet seizes the chance to present various major and minor characters that participated in this war through short dialogs between them, primarily because:

a) Most of them were very important figures and his audience needs to hear more about their background rather than get bored and confused with an endless list of names of dead heroes, b) Some of them are the last of their lineage and no matter if they fought valiantly or not, the history of their family should be memorialized and c) The worth and the glory (Kleos) of a warrior is justified by the worth and the fame of his victim. ”Think now Polydamas and speak of the truth whether this man is not as well worth killing as Prothoenor was; for he seems to me not low himself, nor yet of low descent”, shouted Aias of Telamon to Polydamas after slaying Archelochus to avenge the death of Prothoenor (Rh. XIV. 470-472).

Such descriptions also serve to create an emotional connection between the audience and the fallen heroes – as people cannot sympathize with characters whose personal story and value is unknown – and they have nothing to do with any kind of set ritual or combat rule forced to take place before an encounter.  Similarly, the two major duels presented (Menelaus versus Paris and Hector versus Aias of Telamon) may be evidence that ritualistic single combat to death did exist in ancient Greece, but they can in no way be counted as an integral part of the various phases of battle of that age.

As far as the technique used in close combat, we can spot quite a few elements by analyzing the weapon strikes and traumas mentioned in the epic poem. Of course, they are not sufficient  to reconstruct the whole picture of how these men really knew to handle their weapons, but they are enough to give us a good taste of what these warriors were trained for. In my effort to draw as safe conclusions as possible (if there can be any safe conclusions at all) I focused my research on the fatal and non fatal injuries mentioned in the Iliad which reach the number of one hundred and fifty (150), as I have counted them. Since the purpose of this paper is to speak about how armed and armored warriors fought and wounded each other, for obvious reasons I have discarded one of them, which is the occasion where Diomedes spears the hand of goddess Aphrodite while she is trying to rescue her injured son Aeneas from his killing menace (Rh. V. 335-340). Of the remaining 149:

29 of them are minor to severe injuries. Some of them are referred to blows that put temporarily a hero out of combat while others are major or even critical ones that brought a man to his knees or to the ground where a second killing blow followed. The rest 120 traumas are maximal injuries where Homer actually describes in detail almost half of the deaths mentioned in the Iliad.

Of these 149 traumas:

107 are inflicted by Spears (Rh.IV. 457-462/467-469/479-483/489-492/498-504/524-526/527-528, Rh.V. 17-19/38-42/43-47/55-58/65-68/72-75/144-145/290-294/533-539/578-579/615-617/657-659/660-662/855-859, Rh.VI. 9-11/63-65, Rh.VII. 11-12/13-16/260-262, Rh. VIII. 119-121/256-259, Rh. XI. 95-98/108/143-144/251-253/257-260/320-321/338-339/420-421/423-425/434-439/446-449/575-579, Rh. XII. 182-186/188-189, Rh. XIII. 177-180/185-187/211-214/370-373/387-388/396-398/410-412/437-444/506-508/518-520/528-532/541-544/545-549/567-570/593-597, Rh. XIV. 442-447/449-452/462-468/490-496/516-519, Rh. XV. 341-342/419-421/429-434/520-524/540-544/574-577/649-651, Rh. XVI. 285-289/307-311/311-312/313-316/317-319/319-324/342-344/345-350/399-401/404-410/463-465/479-484/597-600/603-607/806-807/818-822, Rh. XVII. 45-50/293-298/304-310/312-315/347-349/516-524/578-581/597-600/601-604/616-619, Rh. XX. 386-388/395-400/401-404/413-418/455-456/457-459/471-474/478-481/484-487/487-489, Rh. XXI. 166-168, Rh. XXII. 326-329)

21 are inflicted by Swords (Rh. IV. 529-531, Rh. V. 80-84/146-147/584-586, Rh. X. 454-457, Rh. XI. 109/145-146/146-147/239-240/261, Rh. XIII. 202-204/576-579/615-619, Rh. XIV. 496-500, Rh. XVI. 330-334/335-341, Rh. XX. 468-471/474-477/481-483, Rh. XXI. 116-119/179-182)

11 are inflicted by Arrows (Rh. IV. 132-140, Rh. V. 95-100, Rh. VIII. 302-303/311-313, Rh. XI. 375-378/505-507/581-584, Rh. XII. 387-389, Rh. XIII. 650-652/670-672, Rh. XV. 445-453)

and 10 are inflicted by Stones (Rh. IV. 517-522, Rh. V. 302-310/580-583, Rh. VIII. 320-329, Rh. XII. 378-385, Rh. XIV. 410-413, Rh. XVI. 411-414/577-580/586-587/737-743)

With a first and quick look at these statistics that reveal an approximate 72% of wounds inflicted by a spear, one might think that we have to deal with a type of warfare based on the use of phalanxes composed of heavily armored warriors carrying shields and spears. Adding to it the percentage of sword blows, we see that 86% of wounds were inflicted in inclose-combat; a percentage that is far from accurately representing how the armies of Greece and Troy faced each other.

Firstly, we must take in account that Homer puts a spotlight following the first-line promachoi and does not bother to name even one common soldier killing another common soldier. All these injuries are caused by kings, princes and nobles against the likes of them who are all heavily equipped, carrying as big shields and as long spears as they can, since as aforementioned they have to fight both on chariots and in the first ranks of the phalanxes.

Secondly, neither of the two armies lacks specialized units of archers. On one hand, the Argives have the support of 350 archers from Methone and Thaumacia, led by Medon who took in command after their leader Philoctetes was left back at the island of Lemnos (Rh. II. 716-720) and a unit of Locrian archers, who in rhapsody XIII wreak havoc to the Trojan phalanxes with their bows while covered behind the lines of heavy infantry (verses 712-722). On the other hand, the Trojans have the support of the Paeonian archers led by Pyraechmes and the illustrious Asteropaeus. What is more to it, there are also archers included within the ranks of quite a few other units, like that of the Lycians of Glaucus and Sarpedon and the Myrmidons of Achilles, who ”along the sea shore passed their time throwing discs and aiming arrows and javelins at a mark” (Rh. II. 774-775).

Lastly, of these 107 spear blows, 60 are clear occasions of a warrior hurling a spear from a distance, as the words ‘βάλε’ and ‘ἀκόντισε’ (both meaning hurl, throw, dart) are used to describe these strikes. That is a 56% where a spear is thrown rather than thrusted in close distance. Putting all these together, we can say with great certainty that Homeric warfare is primarily ‘ranged warfare’. And this is not strange at all, since ranged attacks even if they miss their target they might not go in vain as they can create collateral losses against tight formations; which is justified by twelve occasions where the attacker managed to kill a man standing next or behind the one he was aiming at (Rh. IV. 489-492, Rh. VIII. 119-121/302-303/311-313, Rh. XIII. 185-187/410-412/518-520, Rh. XIV. 462-468, Rh. XV. 429-434/520-524, Rh. XVII. 304-310/616-619).

Also, there are 23 occasions where a warrior is hit in his back. In 22 of these, the victim takes a killing blow as he flees in panic turning his back to his enemies, while the remaining one is the case of Euphorbus wounding Patroclus (Rh. XVI. 806-807), who is stripped of his armor by the intervention of god Apollo, and Hector finishes him with his spear (Rh. XVI. 818-822). Adding to these 23 plus 1 a) the three occasions where there was a beheading of the victim as an act of anger and after he had received a fatal trauma (Hippolochus by Agamemnon Rh. XI. 145-147, Amphimachus by Aias of Oileus Rh. XIII. 202-204 and Ilioneus by Penelaus Rh. XIV. 496-500), b) that of Diomedes executing Dolon after he and Odysseus arrested him trying to spy the Achaean camp (Rh. X. 454-457), c) the three occasions where the victim has fallen to his knees begging for his life (Adrestus Rh. VI. 63-65, Troas Rh. XX. 468-471 and Lycaon Rh. XXI. 116-119), d) the most unfortunate death in the Iliad, that of Periphetes, who tripped against the rim of his tower shield that reached his feet and as he fell on his back Hector speared his chest (Rh. XV. 649-651), e) the sneaky arrow shot of Pandarus against Menelaus meant to sabotage the truce between Achaeans and Trojans (Rh. IV. 132-140) and f) the death of Alcathous by Idomeneus, as the first was stunned by god Poseidon who ”blinded his bright eyes and bound his strong knees” (θέλξας ὄσσε φαεινά, πέδησε δὲ φαίδιμα γυῖα/Rh. XIII. 435), we come to a total of 34 cases where the victim is not in position to defend himself.

Thus, the rest 115 are the most important since they are true paradigms of injuries caused while the opponents are facing each other and are both able of defending and offending properly. Assorting these into a rough score corresponding to 8 body regions, we have traumas:

To the Head: 24, To the Neck: 15, To the Collarbone: 4, To the Chest: 18, To the Abdomen: 25, To the Pelvic Region: 3, To the Upper Extremity: 17, To the Lower Extremity: 9.

Each of these strikes have been examined individually, but since it would need many pages to analyze them in depth, I am just going to focus on the most important elements they give.

On head traumas:

Most of them are to the forehead (ἐν δὲ μετώπῳ), to the temple (κατὰ κρόταφον) and above the ear (ὑπὲρ οὔατος) where the helmet was penetrated quite easily. The rest are to the ear, between the nose and the eyes, to the chin and the mouth where the helmet has its openings. There is nothing special in these traumas; they are all inflicted by typical strikes against targets that are the most exposed above the shield.

On neck and collarbone traumas:

In these 22 occasions (including the 3 beheadings mentioned before) there is only one but most important thing to notice: there is a total absence of neck protection. Spears pierce right through the neck (ἀντικρὺ δ᾽ ἁπαλοῖο δι᾽ αὐχένος ἤλυθ᾽ ἀκωκή) and sword-cuts send heads flying to the ground (αὐχένα θείνας τῆλ᾽ αὐτῇ πήληκι κάρη βάλε) effortlessly and without meeting any kind of resistance (there is no reference on neck-guards in none of these cases).

On chest and abdomen traumas:

The 18 chest injuries and 17 of the 25 abdomen traumas, are inflicted by strikes that penetrated the breast-plate (ῥῆξε δὲ θώρηκος γύαλον). That is, we have 35 injuries (30.4% of the 115 strikes examined here, which is not a negligible percentage) in a target area where the body is not only covered by the corselet, but it is also supposed to be protected by a shield. Of course, things become clearer when examining the circumstances under which they were inflicted.

There are 9 cases where the victim was mounted on a chariot. 7 of them being the charioteers and 2 of them being the spearmen (Phegeus who was killed by Diomedes in Rh. V. 17-19 and Sarpedon who was killed by Patroclus in Rh. XVI. 479-484) in which clearly none was carrying a shield or was being protected by one. Also, in 2 cases the victim was injured and to its knees or to the ground without being able to cover (Rh. IV. 524-526/529-531). Then, there are the cases of Peirous, that was mentioned before and that of Asteropaeus (Rh. XXI. 179-182), the most famous ambidextrous hero of antiquity; both killed at a moment when they fought without a shield (Peirous wielding a spear and a stone and Asteropaeus wielding 2 spears).

Finally, we have only 5 occasions where the victim was clearly carrying a shield, in 3 of which there was a blow beside it (γυμνωθέντα παρ᾽ ἀσπίδα), that of Hector who was wounded by Aias of Telamon by a thrown stone above his shield (ὑπὲρ ἄντυγος/Rh. XIV. 410-413) and that of Socus who pierced with his spear both the shield and the breast-plate of Odysseus (διὰ μὲν ἀσπίδος…καὶ διὰ θώρηκος/Rh. XI. 434-439), but the wound was not fatal. For the rest of the cases, the poet does not give us information on whether the victim was carrying a shield or not.

As for the remaining 10 abdomen traumas and the 3 to the pelvic region, 6 were on the waist-line through the belt of the victim (κατὰ ζωστῆρα) while the rest were under it; all of them on a target area where a blow can be achieved with an under-thrust, under a round or any kind of medium-sized shield (ὑπ᾽ ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης νύξεν/Rh. XI. 423-425).

On upper and lower extremity traumas:

As far as the strikes against the arms are concerned, I was expecting more to the wrist but there is only one (χεῖρ᾽ ἐπὶ καρπῷ/Rh. XVII. 601-604). Most of traumas are to the shoulder and especially the right one (κατὰ δεξιὸν ὦμον), while the rest are mainly to the elbow or around it (μέσην ἀγκῶνος). Also, I was expecting more leg strikes since logic says they should be quite exposed like the head and the arms but again a) the legs were not a primary target for warriors who fought a lot mounted on chariots and being protected below the waist by the chariot basket and b) there were probably more promachoi carrying tower-shields that reached their feet, besides the 2 mentioned; Aias of Telamon and Periphetes.

There are a lot more things to say on weapon strikes and traumas in the Iliad that need a whole book to be written for their in-depth analysis but for now, I will only refer to 2 last points I consider too important to be left unmentioned.

1. Chariots served neither of the two opposing armies as mobile archery platforms. The dead bodies lying scattered around the field and the rocky terrain of Ilium gave the crew  a rough drive as ”at one moment their chariots were touching the ground while the next they bounded in the air” (ἅρματα δ᾽ ἄλλοτε μὲν χθονὶ πίλνατο πουλυβοτείρῃ,
ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἀΐξασκε μετήορα/Rh. XXIII. 368-369) making steady aiming with a bow impossible.

2. There are no grappling or wrestling techniques mentioned in battle, besides the boxing match between Epeius and Euryalus and the wrestling bout between Aias of Telamon and Odysseus, both of them taking place in rhapsody XXIII where funeral games were held to honor the dead Patroclus.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Rhapsody and verse numbers refer to the original, a free downloadable version of which can be found at the following link: http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/arts/tributes/omhros/

Excerpts from the Iliad used in this paper were translated in English by the author himself.

[© 2014 by Chrysovalantis Tampakakis. All rights reserved]