Lifted from Comments: Hoplite Armor Specs

My old colleague Paul writes a lengthy comment, worth a read:

I watched the Olympics last night [see review in Emery's thread above], so I did not check back until this morning, hence the tardy response. Plus I wanted to give it some thought. Well, first of all, . . . I apologise for mischaracterising your comment as a statement rather than a question. As for Senator Byrd, he's got a valid point about the need to jealously guard a Republic so that it doesn't slip into a Principate, but at times it seems he really believes in the idea that we're the new Roman Empire and hence should run our empire like them, as long as it remains a Republic. Thus he's the one pushing to ignore the WTO ruling against the US on fining foreign companies for something -- was it dumping? -- and giving the fine money to US companies.

As for your new question about whether the culture and ethos of war in Greece were the same as today, I would say "yes" and "no". Before I address that, let me say that the whole issue of whether history provides useful parallels is almost universally held, it's just that people disagree over what lessons we should draw. Thus for instance, in the field of Greek History you get a guy like Victor Davis Hansen, who is a darling of the neoconservatives for his take on Greek history. On the other hand, someone like Judith Hallett -- a colleague of Frances at the University of Maryland -- is a card-carrying democrat and has a quite different take on neoconservative ideas [interesting aside here: several year's ago before the Bush era, Hallett actually contacted the FBI and gave them Hansen's name as the possible Unabomer (I never figured out why unabomer was spelled without a 'b') and after Ted Kacynski was caught she then bragged of it in a public forum].

I would say the core argument of the neoconservatives is the same one made by various politicians and pro-war groups throughout the ages and that is: "We're good and righteous and our cause is good and righteous, so if you don't do what we say, we're going to preemptively attack you and make you righteous too, or at least do what your told!". So while they might agree with a view of history that regards hubris as an act that can lead to defeat, they always think that their own cause is right, and that their preemptive use of force is justified, and their loss, if it comes, was a failure in some strategy. Thus we are losing in Iraq because we disbanded the army, or we didn't get enough electricity up and running, or we didn't have enough soldiers...not because the entire idea of a preemptive strike on a weaker enemy with a different culture in order to control oil supply and impose a new political order is an act of hubris bound to fail. [Note that I am not talking about Afghanistan, which might have had a chance of succeeding had not the US attacked Iraq].

There have been many such politicians and groups throughout the ages. At Athens, the most famous was Kleon. Kleon argued that Athens could only keep her empire together by being more ruthless, and furthermore he argued that such ruthlessness was justified, and while he railed that "Democracy is incapable of empire", Athens by and large followed his policies and yet in the end lost. I'm sure Kleon would disagree -- he would say that Athens only lost because she failed to make all the right military moves he advocated, while both Thucydides and Aristophanes said Athens failed or was bound to fail because of the ruthlessness and hubris of Kleon and those of his ilk. Likewise, the father of History, Herodotus also argued that the Persians failed in their attempts to subdue Greece, not because of faulty military tactics and the like, but because the "gods turn a jealous eye upon anything that vaunts itself, and they chop it down." So, two of the earliest Historians and one comedian, while differing markedly in temperament and methods, all had a similar view of history which we might call the tragic vision of life: hubris [which I'll define as a repeated preemptive acts of violence to get your way] fails in the end no matter the tactics. I happen to agree with it, although if you’re ruthless enough, you can get by for decades.

So it is with that in mind that I said "yes". In other words, the motivations and reasons for war have essentially stayed the same (i.e., self-determination, control of resources, cultural clashes...). Some might find the last one on the list surprising in Greece, but each Greek city-state had its own peculiar dialect, alphabet/spelling, religious calendar, civil calendar and the like. Even today in Greece and Italy and the rest of Europe local dialects and traditions/identity still prevail to a much greater degree than in America. The only real pan-Hellenic institutions/sanctuaries were at Delphi and Olympia, and both were manipulated by the ruling powers, especially Sparta, Corinth, Thebes and Athens, and hence lost their luster over time [note: US is doing same thing right now with UN, Geneva Conventions, WTO, NAFTA, IAEA...].

While war was supposed to have been suspended during sacred months for such festivals and sanctuaries, the rules were often broken. For instance, Thebes attacked Plataea in the Spring of 431 (probably on or a little before April 7), which was a day or two before one of Plataea's large month-long religious festivals was to begin (probably the Daidala festival to Hera). The Plataeans and Thebans were both Boeotians [similar dialect, calendars...], but in or around 519 BC the Plataeans got tired of Theban interference and joined in league with Athens. Thebes thought that Boeotian Confederacy territory should extend all the way to Plataea and the Asopos river, and they deeply resented Athenian influence in the area, so they made a surprise attack on Plataea to bring her back into the fold. This attack by Thebes on Boeotia is marked by Thucydides as the opening of the Peloponnesian War. While the Plataeans repelled the first assault, eventually in 427 the Spartans and Thebans captured the city and the Thebans completely destroyed it -- all its surviving inhabitants moved to Athens [eventually both Sparta and Thebes get their comeuppance too, not disproving my point]. So the fact that the Thebans and Plataeans and other Greeks often spoke dialects of the same language, had essentially the same culture and religion, and often the same constitutions did not completely mitigate the causas belli. It is fair to say that in general the different tribes of the Dorians (Sparta), Ionians (Athens) and Aeolians (Asia Minor Greeks) were able to get along better with members of their own group, but not always. Likewise in the world today, English-speaking countries such as England, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and America tend to get along better, but when it comes to self-determination, we've often had to fight wars with each other to draw the lines.

What has united us most, has really been some new threat that came along [Germany, Russia], but there still are limits to this cohesion. Right now the leaders of England, the US and Australia are fairly close on the Iraq and Al Qaeda questions [we'll see about the new prime minister of Canada, Harper], but a majority of their populations resents a lot of US policies and we should not take these countries' support for granted. In fact, the EU has been formed, not because the Germans, French, Greeks, Italians, Spanish... get along so well and want to be political partners, but because they're willing and feel it necessary to set aside their vast differences in order to counter-balance American might in the areas of economics, culture and military. To keep my previous metaphor, the EU has formed, including talks of adding a separate military force distinct from NATO, not because of the Russians or Muslims or any other group, but because they want to share the summit with America. That is why Chirac talks about a "multi-polar" world. If we don’t share, they’ll become our adversaries. Meanwhile with the fall of the USSR, NATO is an alliance in need of an enemy, and Al Qaeda won’t do. If one doesn’t present itself or we don’t invent one soon, NATO is dead. Like in ancient Greece, then, self-interest often makes for strange bed-fellows, regardless of some cultural differences or constitutions. As in Greece, however, some cultural differences are harder to bridge than others -- Turkey's admission to the "Christian Club" is one such instance.

Aside on distances: modern means of transportation mean that the entire world is closer than Athens and Sparta were (2-3 days march), so yes Ancient Greece provides a useful comparandum to the current geopolitical situation. Plataea and Thebes are about 8 miles apart, but if you have to march in heavy hoplite amour in the mud, on a moonless night without night vision goggles, that will take you a good six hours. This is probably far less time than a plane taking off from an aircraft carrier to hit Baghdad.

Now for my other point as to why some things are different from Ancient Greece, or the "no". I would say the biggest reason why warfare was different in Ancient Greece is not because of changed political institutions or human nature, rather it has more to do with the combination of technology (i.e. nuclear weapons) and media coverage. Nuclear weapons make open warfare amongst large states almost unthinkable. That is why the US and Russian did not square off after WWII. Media coverage makes ruthlessness also more difficult to hide or justify over time. Finally, American imperialism also has a similar advantage to that the Romans held -- we have a citizenship body open to many ethnicities, or at least we did. This last advantage, however, is fading as Americans close their doors more and more and this will have a profound impact on how the rest of the world views us.

In short, I think the ancient world does have lessons for us, including the canard that no two democracies have not attacked each other because they are democracies. Palestine and Israel will soon put that theory to rest in the graveyard of ideas where it belongs. Or to put it another way, it's not that lex curat, rather it's bonas leges curiemus.

Is Paul some kind of anti-Victor Davis Hansen, or what?