Skip to main content
×
Home
The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Recommend this book

    Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

    The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare
    • Online ISBN: 9781139054157
    • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739
    Please enter your name
    Please enter a valid email address
    Who would you like to send this to? *
    ×
  • Buy the print book

Book description

Warfare was the single biggest preoccupation of historians in antiquity. In recent decades fresh textual interpretations, numerous new archaeological discoveries and a much broader analytical focus emphasising social, economic, political and cultural approaches have transformed our understanding of ancient warfare. Volume I of this two-volume History reflects these developments and provides a systematic account, written by a distinguished cast of contributors, of the various themes underlying the warfare of the Greek world from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period and of Early and Middle Republican Rome. For each broad period developments in troop-types, equipment, strategy and tactics are discussed. These are placed in the broader context of developments in international relations and the relationship of warfare to both the state and wider society. Numerous illustrations, a glossary and chronology, and information about the authors mentioned supplement the text. This will become the primary reference work for specialists and non-specialists alike.

Reviews

    • Aa
    • Aa
Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send:
    ×

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×
  • 1 - The modern historiography of ancient warfare
    pp 1-21
    • By Victor Hanson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.002
  • View abstract
    Summary
    Military scholarship about ancient warfare continued in both applied and theoretical approaches through the Middle Ages (the works on Roman military and civic foundations by Egidio Colonna and Christine Pisan), into the Renaissance (Machiavelli and Maurice of Nassau) and early Enlightenment (Henri de Rohan and Chevalier de Folard). Europeans increasingly were more apt to elucidate ancient fighting from their own combat experience than to look back to the Greeks and Romans for contemporary guidance in killing one another. Consequently, at the dawn of ancient military historiography a paradox arose: those in the university most qualified to analyse ancient literary evidence, inscriptions and archaeological data concerning classical warfare were by their very nature as academics often most removed from pragmatic knowledge of the battlefield. Despite occasional controversies concerning the methods and topics of investigating the ancient world at war, classical scholarship continues to ground the field firmly in the philological and bibliographical traditions of the last two centuries.
  • 2 - Warfare in ancient literature: the paradox of war
    pp 22-53
    • By Simon Hornblower, Grote Professor of Ancient History, University College London
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.003
  • View abstract
    Summary
    Wars and fighting are very prominent in the literature of classical antiquity. This chapter looks at literary sources about war and fighting and the problems of using them. It concentrates on three types of fighter: archers, women, slaves. The chapter deals with the interaction between military and non-military institutions: the relationship between the state and organized violence, and attitudes to that relationship as they are displayed in the literary sources, are topics of central importance to the ancient historiography of warfare. It explores why there is so much about war in ancient literature if war was not regarded as the natural, normal state of affairs. Homer's Iliad, with its nearly incessant fighting, might seem to provide a complete reply to any notion that war was viewed by Greeks as unnatural. The chapter ends with six suggestions for the resolution of the paradox of war.
  • 3 - Reconstructing ancient warfare
    pp 54-82
    • By Michael Whitby, Professor of Ancient History, University of Warwick
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.004
  • View abstract
    Summary
    Close examination of ancient historical narratives, whose authors' methods and attitudes need to be evaluated, is essential for all reconstructions of ancient warfare. This chapter discusses the problems of this material. The fullest and most regular information about ancient warfare is provided by the sequence of Greek and Latin historians whose accounts of significant public events were usually dominated by military action, but these are complex texts. The dominance of literary convention affected the earliest historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, since they were still subject to the influence of earlier traditions of narrative, especially the Homeric poems in the case of Herodotus. The basic business of gathering information created problems for constructing a clear narrative, both of the chaos of battle and the wider dimensions of warfare; in addition to the 'Whatley' problem of the partial memory of any participants, personal interests of key informants and national agendas must be considered.
  • 4 - International relations
    pp 83-107
    • By Jonathan Hall, Phyllis Fay Horton Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics and Professor of History, University of Chicago
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.005
  • View abstract
    Summary
    It is perhaps preferable to conceptualize international relations in terms of a dynamic interplay between the identity, characteristics, interests and objectives of actors; the actual process of interaction itself; and external structural determinants. Since international relations in the archaic period were conceived as a zero-sum game in which the gains of one party could only be secured at the expense of the other, arbitration of disputes was from fairly early on referred to third parties. By the fifth century the system of bilateral and unequal alliances that the Spartans had contracted was organized on a more formal basis to constitute what modern scholars call the 'Peloponnesian League', though the term that the ancients used was 'the Lacedaemonians and their allies'. The agonistic spirit in international relations was an anachronism. With the new asymmetric relations of power created by the rise of hegemonic alliances, the imperative to secure honour among peers and the satisfaction gained by achieving this became increasingly redundant.
  • 5 - Military forces
    pp 108-146
    • By Peter Hunt, Professor of Classics, University of Colorado
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.006
  • View abstract
    Summary
    This chapter considers the military capacities and costs of different military forces. These capacities and costs, however, involved considerations rather more complex than, for example, the limited ability of arrows to pierce hoplite armour. The chapter covers the period from the lifting of the Dark Age (c. 750) to the end of the classical period (338). In 338 the Macedonian army of Philip II defeated a coalition of the most powerful Greek city-states, Athens, Thebes and Corinth, established Macedonian dominance over mainland Greece and put an end to hoplite dominance of land warfare. A brief description serves to sum up the treatment of military forces, since the Macedonian army in many ways represented the culmination of classical trends. The Macedonian army was powerful, not only because of the phalangite who replaced the hoplite as the mainstay of the infantry, but also because of the coordinated use of different types of military forces: cavalry of different types, peltasts, slingers and archers.
  • 6 - War
    pp 147-185
    • By Peter Krentz, W. R. Grey Professor of Classics and History, Davidson College, North Carolina
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.007
  • View abstract
    Summary
    An Attic inscription from the early Peloponnesian War records an expedition of thirty triremes, each with five volunteer marines, forty hoplites, ten archers and ten peltasts. Fleets mentioned in Thucydides often averaged more than thirty soldiers per ship, and in fact most of the land battles in the Peloponnesian War were fought against invaders who came by sea. This chapter treats land and sea campaigns in parallel. On campaign Greeks took their armour and weapons, provisions, camping supplies, tools, and medical supplies. In his Acharnians Aristophanes vividly describes what the scene leading up to a fleet's departure would have been like. Greek soldiers also liked camping in sanctuaries, which offered good practical advantages for military camps, since they were prepared to house large numbers of visitors. Naval battles were even rarer than battles on land. The circumvallation sieges were hugely expensive. Greek campaigns simply ended with a general dismissal and a rush to get back pay.
  • 7 - Battle
    pp 186-247
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.008
  • View abstract
    Summary
    Assessment of Greek land warfare must also reckon with currently popular 'face-of-battle' studies. Viewed positively, the 'face-of-battle' approach has revived attention to the role of morale in battle and the details of small unit combat. For some a phalanx can be found in Homer and the introduction of hoplite armour did not 'revolutionize' warfare. The Persian Wars and fifth-century Athenian imperialism would call the agonal system into question and begin teaching the art of generalship. Naval and siege warfare played central roles in classical Greece, but they were much simpler, inexpensive and less lethal before c. 500 BC. Siege warfare was little known in the Greek mainland before that time; naval warfare was more common but still relatively undeveloped. New developments in these two spheres tended to begin at the eastern and western fringes of the Greek world, as a result of contact with foreign peoples, and then to make their way dramatically to centre stage on the Greek mainland.
  • 8 - Warfare and the state
    pp 248-272
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.009
  • View abstract
    Summary
    States make war and war makes states. This chapter argues that the concept of state is perfectly compatible with polities in which legitimate force exists within an oligopolistic rather than a monopolistic system. Two kinds of violence producers were set apart. At one end stood the 'booty-chaser', represented by Homer's Odysseus and his historical successor, the Phocaean Dionysius. At the other end stood the fighting potential of an entire community, mustered and fielded by the central political authority. Thucydides also points to the circumstances that conditioned the emergence of the most pre-eminent classical Greek example of the monopolistic state and establishes the approximate date of this momentous event. The one Greek state to succeed where all others had failed is of course classical Athens. The chapter focuses on what ensured that success was partly possession of two major violence-related institutions, sea-power and hegemony, and partly a determined effort to achieve a high degree of financial independence.
  • 9 - War and society
    pp 273-300
    • By Hans van Wees, Professor of Ancient History, University College London
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.010
  • View abstract
    Summary
    A defining feature of Greek society was the distinction between those who could afford to live off the labour of others, 'the rich' or leisured classes, and those who had to earn a livelihood, 'the poor' or working classes. A second defining feature of Greek society was pervasive competitiveness. Competition for wealth within a community aggravated the pressure on resources created by the leisure-class aspirations of its citizens. Aristotle noted that 'people commit the greatest acts of injustice for the sake of superiority, not for the sake of necessity': the root of conflict was pleonexia. Aristotle briefly argued in his Politics that the growth of hoplite forces had led to wider political participation, and added that it was in particular the small size of the 'middle group' which had previously allowed oligarchic regimes to flourish. Wars were common, and links between social and political structures on the one hand, and military institutions on the other, were close.
  • 10 - International relations
    pp 301-324
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.011
  • View abstract
    Summary
    The relationship existing between the three major Hellenistic empires, the Antigonid in Macedonia and the rest of Greece, the Seleucid in western Asia, the Ptolemaic in Egypt and adjacent territories, was one of uneasy peace interrupted at quite frequent intervals by outbreaks of warfare in certain disputed border regions. In the case of relations between cities and kings, royal commands were phrased as polite requests, and were acceded to by the cities ostensibly out of a sense of proper gratitude to their benefactors. The relationship, both between two cities and between a city and individual foreign citizens, illustrates the degree to which friendly cooperation was considered to be the proper mode of interaction between Greek cities in the Hellenistic era. In embarking on the process of dominating the Hellenistic world, the Romans entered into relations with a culture older and far more sophisticated than their own, not least in regard to diplomacy and international relations.
  • 11 - Military forces
    pp 325-367
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.012
  • View abstract
    Summary
    Philip, Alexander and later Hannibal can be regarded as military commanders of genius, capable of guaranteeing the command and control of a heterogeneous military force. As the territory of the Macedonian state grew, Philip was able to expand its demographic and financial base. The expansion of the Macedonian and Roman manpower bases, which in turn enabled military and territorial expansion, was due to a willingness to extend citizenship and to incorporate allied contingents fully into their military structures. Although Macedonia had some of the best sources of shipbuilding timber in the eastern Mediterranean, neither Philip II nor Alexander embarked upon major programmes of warship construction. The standard warships of the Hellenistic period needed crews of c. 150-300, or more in the case of the larger polyremes. During the Second Punic War the Carthaginian naval effort was not as extensive as that of Rome, but it was still far from negligible.
  • 12 - War
    pp 368-398
    • By Jonathan Roth, Professor of History, San José State University
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.013
  • View abstract
    Summary
    War was a major source of income for Hellenistic monarchs. A remarkable number of innovative military figures arose in Greece in the fourth century: Iphicrates and Chabrias of Athens, Epaminondas, Pelopidas and Pammenes of Thebes, Agesilaus of Sparta and Bolis of Crete, to name only a few. It was, however, Philip II of Macedon who drew many of the new elements of fourth-century warfare together, creating a formidable military machine. The Macedonian king fashioned a true combined arms force, streamlined the logistics of his army, and fashioned an up-to-date siege train. Perhaps most significantly, Philip wrought a new form of political organization, the Greek monarchy, able to direct this new military machine with a single will. Hellenistic strategic decisions were generally based on military circumstances and the desire to defeat the enemy and secure victory. Beginning with the Peloponnesian War and continuing into the fourth century, one sees Greek logistics improving significantly.
  • 13 - Battle
    pp 399-460
    • By Philip Sabin, Professor of Strategic Studies, King’s College London, Philip de Souza, College Lecturer in Classics, University College Dublin
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.014
  • View abstract
    Summary
    This chapter pursues a generic approach to the battles of the Hellenistic and mid-Republican era to analyse them thematically in order to highlight differences and similarities and to cast light on battle as an overall phenomenon. The battles are analysed on two distinct levels: the grand tactical level examining the 'general's battle' of deployment, command and manoeuvre at the level of the army as a whole, and the tactical level. The chapter discusses the 'soldier's battle' at the sharp end itself, focusing on the interaction of differing troop types in actual combat. It closes by discussing the determinants of success in these engagements, and argues that only through an integrated understanding of battle dynamics at the two different levels can the clashes truly be understood. All naval battles were fought very close to land and might even involve land-based forces. The combat conditions of ancient sieges seem to have provided something of a dilemma for commanders in this period.
  • 14 - Warfare and the state
    pp 461-497
    • By John Serrati, Professor of History and Classics, McGill University, Quebec
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.015
  • View abstract
    Summary
    The defining element of the Hellenistic world is most certainly warfare. With his newfound sources of wealth Philip was able to bolster his already large native force with troops of every kind. Siege trains were relatively new in Greek warfare, and had previously only been employed with any effect by Dionysius I of Sicily; afterwards, Syracuse continued to be a centre of the study of siege technology, and this process culminated with the machines of Archimedes in the third century. One of the main characteristics of warfare among the Diadochoi was the fact they were not yet tied to states and were largely fighting over the empire that had been left by Alexander. The economic and administrative forms of Roman imperialism that were now taking place in the provinces could prove more lucrative and less dangerous for the ruling classes than military campaigning.
  • 15 - War and society
    pp 498-516
    • By J. Lendon, Professor of History, University of Virginia
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521782739.016
  • View abstract
    Summary
    In the Peloponnesian War Athens is found hiring barbarian specialists, light infantry from Thrace. The conception of warfare as a collation of crafts had, it is attractive to suppose, a number of historical consequences. Military excellence as craft could also undermine civic harmony by reducing the dependence of the rich citizen upon his neighbours. By the third century Rome was a full member of the Hellenistic cosmos, trading and treating and fighting with Greece, the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Hellenized maritime power of Carthage. The Roman cult of virtus manifests itself in the degree to which Roman society was adapted to the making of war. For war held a different place in Roman than in Hellenistic culture. If the Romans were like the shark, the Greeks were like the dolphin: both ravening predators, but the one morose and single-minded, the other playful and inquisitive.

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.


B. Bar-Kochva (1976) The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in Great Campaigns. Cambridge.

G. R. Bugh (1988) The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton.

V. D. Hanson (1999d) ‘The status of ancient military history: traditional work, recent research and on-going controversies’, Journal of Military History 63: 379–414.

J. C. Mann (1979) ‘Power, force and the frontiers of the Roman Empire’, Journal of Roman Studies 69: 175–83.

N. P. Milner (ed. and tr.) (1993) Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science. Liverpool.

J. W. Rich and G. Shipley (eds.) (1993b) War and Society in the Roman World. London.

E. L. Wheeler (1993) ‘Methodological limits and the mirage of Roman strategy (I) and (II)’, Journal of Military History 57:.

N. Dreher (1995) Hegemon und Symmachie: Untersuchungen zum zweiten Athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York.

S. Hornblower (1992) ‘The religious dimension to the Peloponnesian War, or, what Thucydides does not tell us’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 179–97.

S. Hornblower (1995) ‘The fourth-century and hellenistic reception of Thucydides’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 115: 47–68.

S. Hornblower (2004) Thucydides and Pindar: Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry. Oxford.

N. Loraux (1985) ‘La cité, l’historien, les femmes’, Pallas 32: 7–27.

F. G. B. Millar (1989) ‘Political power in mid-Republican Rome: Curia or Comitium’, Journal of Roman Studies 79: 138–50.

F. G. B. Millar (1998) The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Ann Arbor.

J. A. North (1990) ‘Democratic politics in Republican Rome’, Past and Present 126: 3–21.

G. M. Paul (1982) ‘Urbs capta: sketch of an ancient literary motif’, Phoenix 36: 144–55.

M. Piérart (2003) ‘The common oracle of the Milesians and the Argives (Hdt. 6. 19 and 77)’, in Derow and Parker (2003).

M. M. Sage (1996) Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook. London and New York.

P. Siewert (1977) ‘The ephebic oath in fifth-century Athens’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 102–11.

P. A. Stadter (1965) Plutarch’s Historical Methods: An Analysis of the Mulierum Virtutes. Cambridge, Mass.

T. Wiedemann (1983) ‘ἐλάΞiστOν … ‘ἐν τOĩς ἂρσ∊σi κλέOς”: Thucydides, women and the limits of rational analysis’, Greece and Rome 30: 163–70.

A. Andrewes (1992) ‘The Spartan resurgence’, Cambridge Ancient History V.

T. D. Barnes (1985) ‘Constantine and the Christians of Persia’, Journal of Roman Studies 75: 126–36.

G. L. Cawkwell (1983) ‘The decline of Sparta’, Classical Quarterly 33: 385–400.

J. Dillery (1995) Xenophon and the History of his Times. London.

N. G. L. Hammond (1980c) ‘Training in the use of a sarissa and its effect in battle, 359–333 BC’, Antichthon 14: 53–63.

A. T. Hodge (1975) ‘Marathon to Phalerum’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 95: 169–71.

M. M. Markle (1978) ‘The use of the sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon’, American Journal of Archaeology 82: 483–97.

B. Mitchell (1975) ‘Herodotus and Samos’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 95: 75–91.

R. K. Sherk (1984) Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus. Cambridge.

N. Whatley (1964) ‘On the possibility of reconstructing Marathon and other ancient battles’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 84: 119–39.

W. R. Connor (1988) ‘Early Greek land warfare as symbolic expression’, Past and Present 119:.

J. M. Hall (1995) ‘How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion? The political and cultic geography of the Argive plain, 900–400 BC’, American Journal of Archaeology 99: 577–613.

T. Kelly (1966) ‘The Calaurian amphictiony’, American Journal of Archaeology 70: 113–21.

G. Rougemont (1973) ‘La hiéroménie des Pythia et les “trêves sacrées” d’Éleusis, de Delphes et d’ Olympie’, BCH 97: 75–106.

J. A. O. Larsen (1946) ‘The Acharnians and the pay of taxiarchs’, Classical Philology 41: 91–8.

W. G. Runciman (1998b) ‘The selectionist paradigm and its implications for sociology’, Sociology 32: 163–88.

J.-N. Corvisier (1994) ‘Médicine et démographie, l’exemple de Plutarque’, Revue des études grecques 107: 129–57.

A. J. Holladay (1982) ‘Hoplites and heresies’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102:.

J. F. Lazenby and D. Whitehead (1996) ‘The myth of the hoplite’s hoplon’, Classical Quarterly ns 46:.

L. A. Tritle (2000) From Melos to Mylai. London.

J. K. Anderson (1984) ‘Hoplites and heresies: a note’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 104: 152.

J. K. Anderson (1991) ‘Hoplite weapons and offensive arms’, in Hanson (1991b).

J. Buckler (1980a) ‘Plutarch on Leuctra’, Symbolae Osloenses 55: 75–83.

P. A. Cartledge (1977) ‘Hoplites and heroes: Sparta’s contribution to the technique of ancient warfare’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 11–27.

N. G. L. Hammond (1996) ‘A Macedonian shield and Macedonian measures’, Annual of the British School at Athens 91: 365–7.

V. D. Hanson (1988) ‘Epameinondas, the battle of Leuktra (371 BC) and the “revolution” in Greek battle tactics’, Classical Antiquity 7: 190–207.

V. D. Hanson (1991a) ‘Hoplite technology in phalanx battle’, in Hanson (1991b).

M. H. Jameson (1991) ‘Sacrifice before battle’, in Hanson (1991b).

J. F. Lazenby (1987) ‘The diekplous’, Greece and Rome 34: 169–77.

J. F. Lazenby (1991) ‘The killing zone’, in Hanson (1991b).

R. D. Luginbill (1994) ‘Othismos: the importance of the mass-shove in hoplite warfare’, Phoenix 48: 51–61.

D. Schaps (1982) ‘The women of Greece in wartime’, Classical Philology 77:.

R. H. Sternberg (1999) ‘The transport of sick and wounded soldiers in classical Greece’, Phoenix 53: 191–205.

P. Vaughn (1991) ‘The identification and retrieval of the hoplite battle-dead’, in Hanson (1991b).

I. Whitehead (1987) ‘The periplous’, Greece and Rome 34: 178–86.

F. Cairns (1991) ‘The “Laws of Eretria” (IG XII.9.1273 and 1274): epigraphic, legal, historical and political aspects’, Phoenix 45: 291–313.

G. L. Cawkwell (1984) ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, Classical Quarterly 34: 334–45.

W. S. Ferguson (1932) The Treasurers of Athena. Cambridge, Mass.

C. W. Fornara (1979) ‘On the chronology of the Samian War’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 99: 7–19.

D. M. Lewis (1954) ‘Notes on Attic inscriptions’, Annual of the British School at Athens 49: 17–50.

D. M. Lewis (1989) ‘Persian gold in Greek international relations’, REA 91: 227–34.

R. Osborne (1991) ‘Pride and prejudice, sense and subsistence: exchange and society in the Greek city’, in Rich and Wallace-Hadrill (1991).

W. Schuller (1974) Die Herrschaft der Athener im Ersten Attischen Seebund. Berlin and New York.

M. R. Christ (2001) ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, Classical Quarterly 51: 398–422.

L. Foxhall (1997) ‘A view from the top: evaluating the Solonian property classes’, in Mitchell and Rhodes (1997).

S. Hodkinson (1997) ‘The development of Spartan society and institutions in the archaic period’, in Mitchell and Rhodes (1997).

T. Kelly (1970) ‘The traditional enmity between Sparta and Argos’, American Historical Review 75: 971–1003.

J. E. Lendon (2007) ‘Athens and Sparta and the coming of the Peloponnesian War’, in Samons (2007).

H. van Wees (1997) ‘Homeric warfare’, in Morris and Powell (1997).

H. van Wees (1988) ‘Kings in combat: battles and heroes in the Iliad’, Classical Quarterly 38: 1–24.

D. Wilson (2002) Ransom, Revenge and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge.

A. M. Eckstein (1984) ‘Rome, Saguntum and the Ebro treaty’, Emerita 52: 51–68.

J. J. Gabbert (1997) Antigonus II Gonatas: A Political Biography. London and New York.

T. Wiedemann (1986) ‘The Fetiales: a reconsideration’, Classical Quarterly 36: 478–90.

F. E. Adcock (1940) The Roman Art of War Under the Republic. Cambridge.

Y. Garlan (1984) ‘War and siegecraft’, Cambridge Ancient History VII. 1.

N. G. L. Hammond (1989b) ‘Casualties and reinforcements of citizen soldiers in Greece and Macedonia’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 56–68.

J. S. Morrison (1987) ‘Athenian sea-power 323/2 BC: dream and reality’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 88–97.

A. Treloar (1971) ‘The Roman shield: Polybius vi. 23. 2’, Classical Review 21: 3–5.

M. M. Austin (1986) ‘Hellenistic kings, war and the economy’, Classical Quarterly 36:.

N. G. L. Hammond (1988a) ‘The campaign and battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC)’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 108: 60–82.

J. E. Lendon (1999) ‘The rhetoric of combat: Greek military theory and Roman culture in Julius Caesar’s battle descriptions’, Classical Antiquity 18:.

E. L. Wheeler (1991) ‘The general as hoplite’, in Hanson (1991b).

A. B. Bosworth (2002) The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare and Propaganda under the Successors. Oxford.

H. Heinen (1984) ‘The Syrian-Egyptian wars and the new kingdoms of Asia Minor’, Cambridge Ancient History VII. g1.

F. G. B. Millar (1984a) ‘The Mediterranean and the Roman revolution: politics, war and the economy’, Past and Present 102: 3–24.

N. Morley (1996) Metropolis and Hinterland: The City of Rome and the Italian Economy, 200 BC to AD 200. Cambridge.

D. Musti (1984) ‘Syria and the East’, Cambridge Ancient History VII. 1.

D. W. Rathbone (1981) ‘The development of agriculture in the “Ager Cosanus” during the Roman Republic: problems of evidence and interpretation’, Journal of Roman Studies 71: 10–23.

F. W. Walbank (1984) ‘Monarchies and monarchic ideas’, Cambridge Ancient History VII2.1, 62–100.

A. M. Eckstein (2000) ‘Review article: brigands, emperors and anarchy’, International History Review 22: 862–79.

A. Momigliano (1975) Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge.

S. P. Oakley (1985) ‘Single combat in the Roman Republic’, Classical Quarterly 35: 392–410.

R. K. Sinclair (1988) Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge.

R. Alston (1995) Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. London.

V. Anastasiadis (2004) ‘Idealised scholê and disdain for work’, Classical Quarterly 54: 58–79.

J. K. Anderson (1965) ‘Homeric, British and Cyrenaic chariots’, American Journal of Archaeology 69: 349–52.

J. K. Anderson (1975) ‘Greek chariot-borne and mounted infantry’, American Journal of Archaeology 79: 175–87.

J. K. Anderson (1976) ‘Shields of eight palms width’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 9:.

R. Ash (1999b) Ordering Anarchy: Armies and Leaders in Tacitus’ Histories. London.

E. Baltrusch (1994) Symmachie und Spondai. Untersuchungen zum griechischen Völkerrecht der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (8.–5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Berlin.

M. Berent (2000) ‘Anthropology and the classics: war, violence and the stateless polis’, Classical Quarterly 50: 257–89.

R. A. Billows (1995b) ‘The succession of the Epigonoi’, Syllecta Classica 6: 1–11.

A. B. Bosworth (1973) ‘A∑ηETAIPOI’, Classical Quarterly 23: 245–53.

A. B. Bosworth (1986) ‘Alexander the Great and the decline of Macedonia’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 106:.

J. Bousquet (1988) ‘La stèle des Kyténiens à Xanthos de Lycie’, Revue des études grecques 101:.

M. J. Braddlock (2000) State Formation in Early Modern Europe, c. 1550–1700. Cambridge.

P. Brun (1983) Eisphora-syntaxeis-stratiotika. Recherches sur les finances militaires d’Athènes au IVe siècle av. J. -C.Paris.

J. M. Bryant (1990) ‘Military technology and socio-cultural change in the ancient Greek city’, Sociological Review ns 38: 484–516.

G. R. Bugh (1998) ‘Cavalry inscriptions from the Athenian agora’, Hesperia 67: 81–90.

J. M. Camp (1991) ‘Notes on the towers and borders of classical Boiotia’, American Journal of Archaeology 95:.

B. Campbell (1994) The Roman Army, 31 BC–AD 337: A Sourcebook. London.

E. Carney (1996) ‘Macedonians and mutiny: discipline and indiscipline in the army of Philip and Alexander’, Classical Philology 91: 19–44.

P. A. Cartledge (1979) Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 BC. London.

L. Casson (1966) ‘Galley slaves’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 97: 35–44.

L. Casson (1995a) ‘The feeding of the trireme crews and an entry in IG II2 1631’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 125: 261–9.

G. L. Cawkwell (1963) ‘Eubulus’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 83:.

G. L. Cawkwell (1989) ‘Orthodoxy and hoplites’, Classical Quarterly 39:.

J. Chambers (1977/78) ‘On Messenian and Lakonian helots in the fifth century’, The Historian 40: 271–85.

M. R. Christ (2004) ‘Draft evasion onstage and offstage in classical Athens’, Classical Quarterly 54:.

W. Clarysse and G. Schepens (1985) ‘A Ptolemaic fragment of an Alexander history’, Chrononique d’Égypte 60: 30–47.

J. B. Connelly (1996) ‘Parthenon and parthenoi: mythological interpretation of the Parthenon frieze’, American Journal of Archaeology 100:.

J.-N. Corvisier (1999) ‘Guerre et démographie en Grèce à la période classique’, Pallas 51:.

B. Croke and J. Crow (1983) ‘Procopius and Dara’, Journal of Roman Studies 73:.

C. V. Crowther (1995) ‘Iasos in the second century BC. (3): foreign judges from Priene’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 40:.

N. B. Crowther (1991a) ‘The apobates reconsidered (Demosthenes lxi 23–9)’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 174–6.

A. Dalby (1992) ‘Greeks abroad: social organisation and food among the Ten Thousand’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 112:.

P. de Souza and J. France (eds.) (forthcoming) War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History. Cambridge.

P. Derow (1979) ‘Polybius, Rome and the East’, Journal of Roman Studies 69:.

P. Derow and R. Parker (eds.) (2003) Herodotus and his World. Oxford.

A. M. Devine (1979) Review of Engels (1978), Phoenix 33: 272–6.

A. M. Devine (1983) ‘Embolon: a study in tactical terminology’, Phoenix 37:.

J. W. Drijvers and D. Hunt (eds.) (1999) The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus. London.

P. E. Easterling (1985) ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:.

A. M. Eckstein (1995) ‘Glabrio and the Aetolians: a note on deditio’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 125: 271–89.

D. W. Engels (1986) ‘Alexander’s intelligence system’, Classical Quarterly 30: 327–40.

M. I. Finley (1983) Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge.

E. Foulon (1995) ‘MI∑ØФОPОI et ≡ENОI hellénistiques’, Revue des études grecques 108: 211–18.

E. Foulon (1996a) ‘La garde à pied, corps d’élite de la phalange hellénistique’, Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 1: 17–31.

E. Foulon (1996b) ‘Hypaspistes, peltastes, chrysaspides, argyraspides, chalcaspides’, REA 98:.

J. France (forthcoming) ‘Siege conventions in Western Europe and the Latin East’, in Souza and France (forthcoming).

B. Frier (1975) ‘Licinius Macer and the consules suffecti of 444 BC’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 105: 79–97.

V. Gabrielsen (2001a) ‘Economic activity, maritime trade and piracy in the Hellenistic Aegean’, REA 103:.

P. D. A. Garnsey , T. Gallant and D. W. Rathbone (1984) ‘Thessaly and the grain supply of Rome during the second century BC’, Journal of Roman Studies 74: 30–44.

P. D. A. Garnsey and D. W. Rathbone (1985) ‘The background to the grain law of Gaius Gracchus’, Journal of Roman Studies 75: 20–5.

P. Gauthier (1999) ‘Symbola athéniens et tribunaux étrangers a l’époque hellénistique’, BCH 123:.

A. K. Goldsworthy (1997) ‘The othismos, myths and heresies: the nature of hoplite battle’, War and History 4:.

A. J. Graham (1992) ‘Thucydides 7.13.2 and the crews of Athenian triremes’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 257–70.

A. J. Graham (1998) ‘Thucydides 7.13.2 and the crews of Athenian triremes: an addendum’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 128: 89–114.

E. S. Gruen (1975) ‘Rome and Rhodes in the second century BC: an historiographical inquiry’, Classical Quarterly 25:.

N. G. L. Hammond (1984b) ‘The battle of Pydna’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 104:.

V. D. Hanson (ed.) (1991b) Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience. London.

P. Harding (1985) From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge.

P. Harding (1998) ‘Athenian defensive strategy in the fourth century’, Phoenix 42: 61–71.

A. J. Holladay (1988) ‘Further thoughts on trireme tactics’, Greece and Rome 35:.

B. D. Hoyos (1998) Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars. Berlin.

H. Hurst (1976) ‘Excavations at Carthage’, AntJ 56: 177–97.

H. Hurst (1977) ‘Excavations at Carthage’, AntJ 57: 232–61.

J. W. Hurwitt (2002) ‘Reading the Chigi Vase’, Hesperia 71: 1–22.

A. H. Jackson (1991) ‘Hoplites and the gods: the dedication of captured arms and armour’, in Hanson (1991b) 228–59.

B. Jordan (2000) ‘The crews of Athenian triremes’, L’Antiquité classique 69: 81–101.

L. Kallet-Marx (1989) ‘The Kallias decree, Thucydides and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War’, Classical Quarterly 39:.

D. Konstan (1997) Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge.

P. Krentz (1985b) ‘The nature of hoplite battle’, Classical Antiquity 4:.

P. Krentz (2002) ‘Fighting by the rules: the invention of the hoplite agôn’, Hesperia 71:.

J. H. Kroll (1977) ‘An archive of the Athenian cavalry’, Hesperia 46:.

L. Kurke (1992) ‘The politics of habrosynê in archaic Greece’, Classical Antiquity 11:.

J. F. Lazenby (1988) Review of Morrison and Coates (1986), Journal of Hellenic Studies 108: 250.

M. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel (1983) ‘Chariots in late Bronze Age Greece’, Antiquity 57: 187–92.

M. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel (1996) ‘Robert Drews and the role of chariotry in Bronze Age Greece’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15: 297–305.

A. B. Lloyd (1982) ‘The inscription of Udjahorresnet, a collaborator’s testament’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68: 166–80.

R. Lonis (1980) ‘La valeur du serment dans les accords internationaux en Grèce classique’, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 6: 267–86.

H. L. Lorimer (1947) ‘The hoplite phalanx’, Annual of the British School at Athens 42: 76–138.

M. M. Markle (1977) ‘The Macedonian sarissa, spear and related armor’, American Journal of Archaeology 81: 323–9.

M. M. Markle (1999) ‘A shield monument from Veria and the chronology of Macedonian shield types’, Hesperia 68:.

F. G. B. Millar (1984b) ‘The political character of the classical Roman Republic, 200–151 BC’, Journal of Roman Studies 74:.

F. G. B. Millar (1986) ‘Politics, persuasion and the people before the Social War, 150–190 BC’, Journal of Roman Studies 76:.

J. S. Morrison (1984) ‘Hyperesia in naval contexts in the fifth and fourth centuries BC’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 104:.

J. S. Morrison (1991) ‘The Greek ships at Salamis and the diekplous’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 196–200.

O. Murray (1972) ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic culture’, Classical Quartely 22: 200–13.

J. L. Myres (1943) ‘AKHPYKTO∑ φO∧EMO∑ (Herodotus V. 81)’, Classical Review 57: 66–7.

J. A. North (1981) ‘The development of Roman imperialism’, Journal of Roman Studies 71:.

M. C. Nussbaum and J. Sihvola (eds.) (2002) The Sleep of Reason: Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome. Chicago.

J. Ober (1987) ‘Early artillery towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid’, American Journal of Archaeology 91:.

C. Pierson (1996) The Modern State. London.

A. Powell (ed.) (1995) The Greek World. London.

N. B. Rankov (1994) ‘Reconstructing the past: the operation of the trireme reconstruction, Olympias, in the light of the historical sources’, Mariner’s Mirror 80: 131–46.

E. Rawson (1971) ‘The literary sources for the pre-Marian army’, Papers of the British School at Rome 39:.

J. W. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.) (1991) City and Country in the Ancient World. London and New York.

J.-C. Riedinger (1976) ‘Remarques sur la timê chez Homère’, Revue des études grecques 89: 244–64.

C. Roebuck (1955) ‘The early Ionian League’, Classical Philology 50:.

W. G. Runciman (1998a) ‘Greek hoplites, warrior culture and indirect bias’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4: 731–51.

P. A. G. Sabin (2000) ‘The face of Roman battle’, Journal of Roman Studies 90:.

J. Salmon (1977) ‘Political hoplites?’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 97:.

J. Samons (ed.) (2007) Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles. New York.

R. L. Sargent (1927) ‘The use of slaves by the Athenians in warfare’, Classical Philology 22:.

K. Saunders (1999) ‘The wounds in Iliad 13–16’, Classical Quarterly 49: 345–63.

A. N. Sherwin-White (1980) ‘Rome the Aggressor?’, Journal of Roman Studies 70:.

R. K. Sinclair (1966) ‘Diodorus Siculus and fighting in relays’, Classical Quarterly ns 16:.

H. W. Singor (1991) ‘Nine against Troy: on epic phalagges, promachoi and an old structure in the story of the Iliad’, Mnemosyne 44:.

A. M. Snodgrass (1965) ‘Hoplite reform and history’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 85: 110–22.

A. M. Snodgrass (1993) ‘The “hoplite reform” revisited’, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 19: 47–61.

K. Stanley (1993) The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton.

P. F. Stary (1979) ‘Foreign elements in Etruscan arms and armour: eighth to third centuries BC’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45: 179–206.

R. Thomas (1989) Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge.

A. Tilley (1992) ‘Three men to a room – a completely different trireme’, Antiquity 66:.

M. Trundle (2001) ‘The Spartan revolution: hoplite warfare in the later archaic period’, War & Society 19:.

E. G. Turner (1984) ‘Ptolemaic Egypt’, Cambridge Ancient History VII2.I.

C. Ulf (ed.) (1996b) Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität: die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit. Berlin.

H. van Wees (1986) ‘Leaders of men? Military organisation in the Iliad’, Classical Quarterly 36:.

H. van Wees (1994) ‘The Homeric way of war: the Iliad and the hoplite phalanx (I) and (II)’, Greece and Rome 41:.

H. T. Wade-Gery and B. Meritt (1957) ‘Athenian resources in 449 and 431 BC’, Hesperia 26:.

E. L. Wheeler (1987) ‘Ephorus and the prohibition of missiles’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 117: 157–82.

E. L. Wheeler (1990) Review of Hanson (1989), Journal of Interdisciplinary History 21: 122–5.

E. L. Wheeler (1993) ‘Methodological limits and the mirage of Roman strategy (I) and (II)’, Journal of Military History 57: 7–42, 215–40.

E. L. Wheeler (1998) ‘Battles and frontiers’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 644–51.

T. P. Wiseman (1981) ‘Practice and theory in ancient historiography’, History 66: 375–93.

A. G. Woodhead (1960) ‘Thucydides’ portrait of Cleon’, Mnemosyne 13:.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3127 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 2556 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.