Above all else, the Greek hoplite was a spearman protected by his bronze-covered shield, fighting in a 'phalanx' of spearmen formed up in a line so many ranks deep. When asked why Lakedaimonian hoplites who lost their shields were dishonoured, while those who lost their helmets or cuirasses were not, according to Plutarch (Moralia 220 A) the Lakedaimonian king Demaratos replied: 'Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of the whole line.' The phalanx was a fighting formation that relied on co-ordinated group activity for success: the phalanx that could maintain the cohesion of its line the longest would normally be the victor in the hoplite battle. As such, during their two years of basic training as hoplites organised by the state, which was not by any means a full-time activity, young men would normally only be trained in their role as a member of the phalanx, that is in its operation as a body. In other words they would train to march in line, change formation, hold their shields together, and wield their spears as a unit.
The sword was very much a weapon of second choice, which was only drawn once a hoplite's spear had been shattered in the spear-fighting (doratismos) that went on once the two hoplite lines met. Fighting with spear and shield mainly required courage, strength and stamina to push on through the enemy line. Once the two lines were thrown out of order, the spears were shattered and the swords were drawn, swordfights would take the form of one-to-one duels fought out in chaotic conditions where the two shield walls had broken. In his Life of Timoleon (28.1), which describes the battle of the Krimesos fought against the Carthaginians in 341 BC, Plutarch states that the hoplites of the Carthaginian phalanx at first stood their ground against the Sicilian Greeks commanded by the Corinthian general Timoleon, until 'the struggle came to swords and the work required skill no less than strength'. In another passage in his Life of Pyrrhus (7.5) Plutarch describes a duel fought out between King Pyrrhus of Epirus and Pantauchos, General of Demetrius Poliorketes 'The Besieger', in 288 BC. They first threw their spears and then, coming to close quarters, laid in with their swords 'with might and skill'. Pyrrhus was wounded himself, but managed to wound Pantauchos in the thigh and neck, that is in the vulnerable points between helmet and shield and shield and greaves.
Thus, paradoxically, although sword fighting was not taught during basic training, it required much more skill and training than spear fighting. Hence a demand arose for extra private tuition in skill-at-arms, in which sword fighting played an important part. Parents with sufficient funds were more than willing to pay for this extra instruction. Instructors, known as hoplomachoi, 'fighters in arms', are first mentioned in literary sources located in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. We know of five hoplomachoi from this period by name: Stesileos, the brothers Euthydemos and Dionysodoros of Chios, Phalinos of Stymphalos (who later served as military adviser to the Persian General Tissaphernes at the battle of Cunaxa in 401 BC) and Diomilos of Andros.
The hoplomachoi did not limit their terms of reference to teaching skill-at-arms; they also professed to be capable of teaching all branches of the military art, including generalship. For this reason, sources are in the main hostile to the profession of the hoplomachos. Xenophon in his Memorabilia (3.1) describes how Dionysodoros arrived in Athens and announced that he was going to teach generalship. For this reason the ancient sources are very critical of the hoplomachoi, dismissing them as charlatans. Nevertheless, they filled a real gap in Greek military training, which was only remedied at Athens in 335 BC when the reforms of the influential politician Lycurgus improved the system of hoplite training by, among other things, contracting specialist instructors in different skills-at-arms. Even Plato, one of the severest critics of the hoplomachoi, admits this through the words he puts in the mouth of the Athenian general Nikias (Laches 182 A) that such training is of the greatest advantage when the ranks are broken, and the hoplite has to fight man to man, either pursuing an enemy who is trying to beat off the attack, or when retreating oneself.
So much for Greek training in swordsmanship, what of the swords themselves? The Greek sword most widely in use during the Classical period had a straight, double-edged, leaf-shaped iron blade, swelling out towards the tip, and a cruciform hilt. References to Chalcidian swords in ancient texts, such as in a surviving fragment of the Lesbian poet Alkaios, suggest that the finest Greek swords were made in the city of Chalcis in Euboea. Indeed the eminent archaeologist Anthony Snodgrass stated in his book Arms and Armour of the Greeks, which first appeared in 1967 but is still the principal comprehensive work on the subject, that 'Chalcis became the outstanding centre of production of iron swords in Greece, as Toledo did of steel in medieval Europe'.
The sword with leaf-shaped blade could be used for both cut and thrust, but it is clear from the representational evidence that it was principally used in a downward cut. In fact we have few detailed clues as to how it was used. An interesting vase in the British Museum depicts a duel between Achilles and Hektor. Achilles on the left is still fighting with his spear, but Hektor has lost his, and is about to launch a violent attack with his drawn sword, which is of the standard type with its leaf-shaped blade. He has thrown the sword backwards in his right hand, and is about to rush on Achilles. As he runs in he will swing the sword forwards and upwards, and then up over the right shoulder, flexing his elbow and holding his chest and shoulders as high up as possible, in order to bring it down in front of him with the maximum force. Interestingly, and presumably by mistake, the artist has given Hektor a second sword housed in his scabbard.
The swelling of the blade, both in width and thickness, towards the point, which gives it its distinctive leaf shape, is presumably designed to move the centre of gravity of the blade forwards towards the point, and as far away from the hand as possible, to maximise the force of the downward blow. The emphasis was placed on the downward cut, and so we also find the Greeks making use of two types of curved and single-bladed swords designed to maximise the force of the blow.
The first type is best described as a recurved sabre. Shaped like a Gurkha kukri or a yataghan [a muslim long curved knife], the back of the blade curves forward, and the main weight of the weapon lies near the tip. The cutting edge is on the concave side. The hilt sometimes ends in the shape of a bird or animal head, or curves back to guard the knuckles in the shape of a 'knuckle-duster'. The weapon is often shown being used in a backhand cut. A good example of this is a vase in Bologna that shows an Amazon hoplite swinging a recurved sabre back over her left shoulder. She is about to deliver a diagonal slashing stroke to her front and right with it. Recurved sabres are very common in Iberia, but all these examples seem to be later in date, and it is possible they represent a later spread in the use of the weapon out of the Greek world to the west.
Finally the Greeks also used a third type of sword, not previously distinguished from the recurved sabre by Greek archaeologists, which, in comparison with the standard terminology used for medieval weaponry, we might best term a 'falchion'. Other suitable terms might be 'backsword' or 'pallasch'. It also had a heavy single-edged blade, whose back was either straight or slightly concave, but not recurved like the sabre described above, while the edge has a pronounced convex curve and broadens considerably towards the point. Like the recurved sabre the falchion also came into use in the later 6th century. The falchion is only shown on a limited number of vase paintings, and its popularity does not seem to have survived long into the 5th century.
Recurved sabres and falchions are both shown being used by Achaemenid troops on Greek vases. This suggests that both weapons may have originated in the east before being borrowed by the Greeks. No complete examples of either weapon have survived in Achaemenid contexts. However, an example of a pair of hilt applications was recovered from the excavations carried out at Persepolis, in the quarters once occupied by the garrison of the palace. It probably comes from a falchion rather than a recurved sabre. Evidently the hilt consisted of a central iron plate, an extension of the blade, to which a non-metallic plate was fixed at either side. The examples recovered by the excavations at Persepolis were of a blue paste composite material, which clearly imitates the precious stone lapis lazuli. They evidently come from a high quality example used by a unit of the guard. More mundane examples were probably made of wood or bone. In his Cyropaedia (1. 2. 9) Xenophon describes the equipment used by Persian infantrymen during the early fourth century. They each carry a bow and arrows, a wicker shield and two spears, and a battle-axe or sword. Xenophon is evidently referring to either a recurved sabre or a falchion, and he uses the word kopis to describe it.
The word kopis literally means 'chopper'. In a number of literary passages the word is used of the domestic meat-cleaver, and where meat-cleavers are shown on vase-paintings they repeat the shape of the military recurved sabre or falchion. Similarly the word kopis is also used to describe the priestly knives used in religious sacrifices, and where priests are shown they hold knives that imitate the shape of the recurved sabre. Consequently we can be reasonably confident that when the word kopis is used in a military context it is being used of the recurved sabre or falchion. The Greeks used two other words for sword, machaira and xiphos. In the final chapter of his manual On Horsemanship (12.11) Xenophon recommends that the cavalryman should use a machaira rather than a xiphos, because from his elevated seat he will be able to strike with much more force with a kopis rather than a xiphos. Clearly in this passage Xenophon uses machaira as a synonym for kopis, and contrasts it to the xiphos. Thus the term machaira is probably given to the recurved sabre or the falchion too. Euripides in his play Cyclops (241) also uses both words synonymously.
Modern scholars and enthusiasts currently use the word machaira to describe the Greek recurved sabre and falchion, but this is not desirable practice. In its basic sense the word machaira means 'knife', and so the word is used of kitchen knives used for eating and in diminutive form for surgeons' knives, and the Greek word for a cutler is a machairopoios or 'knife-maker'. For this reason we cannot be certain that whenever the word machaira is used to describe a sword in the ancient texts it refers to the recurved sabre or falchion. It is used, for example, to describe the straight-bladed Lakedaimonian short-sword (see below). Similarly it seems that the word xiphos is used both in a general sense to mean 'sword' and specifically to mean the standard Greek slashing sword with leaf-shaped blade and cruciform hilt.
All of these three different types of sword in use during the early Classical period had one major fault. The shape of the blades of all three types created a weak point at the neck of the blade near the hilt. In time even the best blades would weaken and shear. This happened during the final phase of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. Herodotus (7.224-5) describes how the 300 Lakedaimonians commanded by Leonidas fought with their swords when their spears had broken, and then 'with swords (machairai), those who still had them, and even with their hands and teeth'.
A completely different sword comes into use towards the end of the 5th century, but its introduction is more likely connected to new tactics and concepts of combat developed by the Lakedaimonians rather than any inherent faults in the swords currently in use. No examples of this much shorter weapon, known as the Lakedaimonian short sword, have survived, however, a model sword in the British Museum, purchased privately in Crete in 1898 and later acquired by the Museum, perhaps copies one. It measures 32.2 cm, and so is larger than life, and is made solely of solid bronze. It weighs 780 grams. The hilt does not seem to have been manufactured separately from the blade, but it is not immediately obvious whether it has been brazed on, or whether the sword has been cast in one piece. There is no evidence for the remains of any flash around the hilt, but on the right flange of the hilt above the guard there is a circle of flat metal, possibly where the sprue has been broken off and smoothed down. Consequently, despite the slightly serrated edge, it was probably manufactured for a non-military purpose: perhaps either as an offering in a temple, or as a fitting for a statue, possibly erected by one of the cities of Crete to honour a Lakedaimonian king or general. Nevertheless, it probably reflects the shape of the Lakedaimonian short sword. The blade is a dumpy leaf shape, and the bottom of the guard is an ovoid shape. The pommel is roughly circular.
The first literary passage mentioning the Lakedaimonian short swords is in the Moralia (217 E) of Plutarch, which preserves a pithy statement of the Lakedaimonian statesman and general Antalkidas. In answer to a man who asked why the Lakedaimonians used short daggers, Altalkidas is reputed to have said, 'Because we fight close to the enemy.' Antalkidas was active from the 390s through to the 360s BC. He played a prominent role in the Lakedaimonian campaigns in Asia Minor, which came to an end in 387 BC with the famous 'Peace of Antalkidas' that he himself helped negotiate. Most probably this passage can be assigned to an incident that occurred during this campaign. It is clear from the representational evidence, however, that the short sword came into use considerably earlier, probably at some point in the second quarter of the 5th century.
Elsewhere in the Moralia (232 E) Plutarch attributes a very similar statement to an unidentified Lakedaimonian, who says that they could get to close quarters thanks to their short swords. It is uncertain whether these two passages preserve original statements by two separate individuals, or whether the second citation is an abbreviated and distorted version of the retort of Antalkidas. It is significant that in these and other passages use of the short sword is clearly regarded as a Lakedaimonian practice, at least initially. It is also significant that in both these passages the Lakedaimonian short sword is called an encheiridion, or 'dagger', rather than one of the more usual words for sword.
The reason for the switch to the short sword is made clear in these anecdotes. The earlier Greek swords were multi-purpose and were designed for use in the cut-and-thrust of a duel with a single enemy after the collapse of the phalanx. The Lakedaimonians were superior in drill to the other Greek hoplite armies. Marching in step, they would attempt to maintain their order right through the hoplite battle. If a hoplite had his spear broken in battle and was forced to use his sword, there would be no room for the swinging overhead blows of the cruciform sword, sabre or falchion, and they were too long to be used handily for underhand thrusts. But this was exactly what the thrusting short sword was designed for. The Lakedaimonian hoplite could attack his enemy's trunk or loins with it, either finding his way round his opponent's shield, or using his own shield to push a way through the enemy shield-wall. If he could open up a gap in this way, it did not have to be too big for him to get in a blow. The way in which the Lakedaimonians and their imitators used their swords in repeated under handthrusts can be compared to the way in which the Roman legionary used the 'Spanish sword' to such great effect.
A short sword of this type, though a little smaller in size, is shown in use on a sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The sculpture is made from 'Pentelic' marble, which came from quarries on Mount Pentelikon in Attica. We know that Attic marble was exported to be used in sculptors' workshops in neighbouring countries, nevertheless on stylistic grounds the stele can be safely attributed to an Attic workshop. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume that the stele was originally commissioned as a tombstone by the family of an Athenian warrior who had died in battle. He probably died during the Peloponnesian Wars, as the sculpture has been dated to the late 5th century BC on stylistic grounds. The stele, broken off at the top, shows the deceased as a triumphant Athenian hoplite, about to deliver a fatal blow to the hoplite at his feet with a downward thrust of his spear. Presumably the stele is meant to symbolise victory in death, for it seems that the warrior at his feet is also about to deliver the wound that killed the Athenian in the form of an upward thrust with his short sword. The sculpture clearly demonstrates the way in which these swords were used to deliver short stabs. The hoplite lying on the ground, perhaps wounded, wears a pilos-helmet, and could possibly be regarded as a Lakedaimonian. He does not, however, wear the distinctive long locks and beard of a true Lakedaimonian warrior. Perhaps, therefore, he is a Lakedaimonian mercenary, or a hoplite recruited from among the Lakedaimonian helots, or serfs.
Use of the short sword spread to other Greek armies, though outside the Lakedaimonian army it never completely replaced the more traditional types of Greek swords. The Lakedaimonian army was the best-organised Greek army, and the equipment it used was more uniform than that of other Greek states. There is even some evidence for the state issue of equipment. In other states the type of weapons carried by the citizen soldiers seems to have, to a large extent, depended on personal choice, within the framework of state legislation outlining which items the citizens had to carry while serving as hoplites. Therefore in other armies the types of sword carried by the hoplites may have varied to quite a significant degree. Nevertheless, in some areas, and the process is most easily discerned in Boeotia, the short sword seems to have also entered universal use in the first quarter of the 4th century. A number of representations of hoplites from Boeotia show them adopting an aggressive pose, body thrust to the front with the left leg forward, pushing forward the shield to throw the enemy off balance, while the right hand is drawn backwards poised to deliver a mortal thrust with a short sword of the Lakedaimonian type.
The Lakedaimonians continued to use their short swords, and the same jokes, right down to the age of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, by which time it was no longer in widespread use in other Greek armies. Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus (19.2), tells us that when an Athenian mocked the Lakedaimonian swords (machairai) for being so short that jugglers on stage could easily swallow them, a certain King Agis replied, 'And even so we still reach our enemies with these daggers (encheiridia).' Here Plutarch puts the word machaira, often used, as we have seen, for the 'sabre' in the mouth of the Athenian and encheiridion, or 'dagger' into the mouth of Agis. A parallel passage in Plutarch's Moralia (191 E) identifies the monarch in question as Agis III, who reigned 338-331 BC, and the Athenian as the orator and politician Demades. Here the word xiphos, the standard Greek word for sword, is used of the Lakedaimonian short sword, as it is in a second passage of Plutarch's Moralia (241 F), where, according to Plutarch, a Lakedaimonian mother is said to have remarked to her son, when he complained that his sword was too short, that he should 'add a step forward to it'.
The way in which the words encheiridion, machaira and xiphos are interchanged in these passages relating to the Lakedaimonian short sword, even allowing for some inaccuracies in their transmission from the original source down to the pen of Plutarch, demonstrates how the different ancient Greek words for swords are applied quite irregularly. However, vase paintings, sculptures and other archaeological evidence clarify the distinctions between the three types of swords and throw additional light on the evolutiuon of the most widely used short sword into the Lakedaimonian xiphos.
by Nick Sekunda
Further Reading
de Souza, Philip, Essential Histories 27: The Pelopponesian War 431-404 BC
de Souza, Philip, & Heckel, Waldemar, & Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, Essential Histories Specials 5: The Greeks at War - From Athens to Alexander (Osprey, 2004)
Sekunda, Nick, Elite 7: The Ancient Greeks (Osprey, 1986)
Sekunda, Nick, Elite 66: The Spartan Army (Osprey, 1998)
Sekunda, Nick, Warrior 27: Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC (Osprey, 2000)
Sekunda, Nick & Warry, John, General Military: Alexander the Great (Osprey, 2004)
Snodgrass, Anthony, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998)