"Spartan / Greek Peltasts and nudity" Topic

I have a rather large contingent of Spartan Peltasts with an oval shield and completely starkers (nude). My question is what era would this be suitable (hopefully all eras) and was the nudity a common thing, as in were units often nude?

There is a minority opinion that Classical Greek hoplites and light infantry often fought naked, as indeed they are sometimes depicted in their art. Most writers disagree, and think that the nudity is an artistic convention: on the isolated occasions that we do hear of naked Greek warriors in literature, such as the story about the Spartan rushing to battle straight from the bath, it is treated as unusual.

However the idea of naked "Spartan peltasts" with oval shields intrigues me. What figures are they? Are you sure they're Greeks and not Celts?

Because some Celtic warriors, by contrast, do seem to have fought naked. For this we have the testimony of Greek art, Etruscan art (and the Etruscans were never as fond of "heroic nudity" as the Greeks), some Celtic art, and Greek writers. And of course the Celts used oval shields.

Those will be from Black Tree Design, largish figures but they are absolutely wonderful sculpts, I recommend them ( had a whole Spartan/allied army for good ol Warhammer Ancients, sold them when my shoes had big holes in the soles, wish I hadn't :(
Cheers they paint up great those shields were odd though, any one?

In the presence of vague, often contradictory evidence, my motto is "Go with what seems most fun!" I was once working on an all-nude greek army for HotT using Museum figures, as the "historical" opponent for my nude amazon army…

I have serious doubts about the whole nudity thing. If it existed, or perhaps to the degree to which it existed,
I think it is largely bravado. Stepping on a pointy rock or a sticker plant is going to cause you to disrupt the phalanx or other formation just as surely as getting hit by an arrow or javelin, not to mention the dubious amusements of getting one's dangly bits snagged whilst charging through the briar patch.

Admittedly, peltasts operated in a looser formation than hoplites, so had more opportunity to go around briar patches than did hoplites.

Now, I could see nudity as part of a ritualistic, insulting the foe, pre-combat phase of the battle, kind of like Mel Gibson's Scots mooning the English in the movie Braveheart.

Grelber

Slightly O/T, but I refuse to use any nude minis in any of my armies. It's not that I also seriously doubt it was done, but I also demo games at schools and other public venues, and nude minis have no place there. They serve only to distract the adolescents (and other grown adolescents) from the game and the demo.

I don't want to have to deal with any parental complaints to the local school board about the appropriateness of nude wargaming minis and so I just don't buy them, period.

V/R

We know they performed in athletic competition nude. I've never really understood the case for rejecting the depictions of nude warriors. Greiber's argument seems to be an argument against fighting barefoot, rather than nude.

There's lots of evidence of warriors fighting nude, or near enough that it makes no difference – Zulus sure as heck didn't wear combat boots (or any other boots), or much else and it certainly didn't reduce their ability to operate in an environment that had lots of thorn bushes, rocks and lots of other pointy bits. Same for the Maasai and practically every other sub-saharan African set of traditional warriors. The same goes for pretty well any warrior in a central or south American jungle environment. The film is from Papua/New Guinea rather than Africa, but if you want to see actual nekkid warfare being conducted, check out "Dead Birds". It was filmed in the late '60s and two tribes skirmished with each other over several days – all those involved were wearing nothing more than a strap and a pe_is sheath. Again, no shortage of pointy plants and rocks they "couldn't" fight near… If you grow up without shoes, you end up with very hard callouses on your feet. As for briars, I expect that a naked hoplite in shieldwall had far more important things to worry about and the guys next to him in short tunics weren't much more briar-proof around the hurty-bits in any case.

The argument that nekkid combat by the Greeks and Celts "isn't practical" isn't anything more than modern preference. Heck, the usual spring to fall campaign season even makes the "it's too cold" argument irrelevant.

There's one good reason for it: getting hit with an arrow or spear while clothed would drive fragments of those clothes into the wound, making infection more likely.

Jeff Ewing, while that's true in medical terms, I'm not sure whether or not that reason would have motivated ancient (or more recent) nekkid warriors, since it's an open question to what extent they understood vectors of infection. Greek scholars (I'm thinking Aescepaulus and Hippocrates) certainly worked on theories around causes of infections – that might have influenced how warriors viewed the issue of fighting unclothed, but I think depictions of naked warriors pre-date the scholars. As for the Celts, with the absence of written records we don't know how sophisticated their medical knowledge was.

Given that is the case, I suspect that the reasons were mainly to do with cultural/religious beliefs. Histories specifically attribute Celtic nude warriors to their membership in a warriors' cult. They were basically voluntarily putting themselves in the hands of their gods by fighting nude.

In the case of the Greeks, athletic male physique was very highly valued in sport and social life, I wouldn't be surprised if that was extended to warfare. For young men out to prove themselves (and not yet packing the middle-aged midriff I'm saddled with) fighting nude would have some appeal, especially if they were not wealthy enough to afford more complete armour. Both the armour and the athletic nakedness expressed individual value – one as a display of wealth (as well as stopping blows) and the other a display of the male physical ideal. And for men in the Greek city-states taking one's place in the phalanx was a social (literally, since serving in the phalanx was a requirement for citizenship) as well as military gathering – in the phalanx flaunt it if you've got it!

While I certainly accept that the extent evidence shows/supports/proves nudity in athletic endeavors, that does NOT extend to combat.

What I would suggest is that those nude warriors shown on vases, etc, represent Heros in combat, the nude "athletic" appearance being used to show the viewer that the person depicted is a hero or otherwise famous athlete, etc.

Comparing Zulus, et al, to Ancient Greeks is only useful for college term papers. Natal and it's areas are primarily grassland, savannah. While there are trees, bushes and even rocks, the vast area is earth with grass and other reasonably soft vegetation. Greece and the areas around it are anything but. Lots of flinty, rocky areas with cultivated fields and vineyards being the exception that breaks up the vista. Going unshorn there, especially into battle, is beyond stupid, no matter how calloused the feet.

As noted further up the discussion, it only takes one fellow cutting or otherwise injuring his foot on a stone to mess up a phalanx.

I refuse to accept the nude warrior/fighter idea in the Greek world, as it has no advantage for the warrior.

"I refuse to accept" is something a person says when he feels like the evidence is against him.

If you think the Greek art and literature describing nude combat is a prank, that's your business. They certainly fought barefoot. This is how they were depicted in almost all art.

Have you ever owned leather sandals, or sandals of any material other than texturized rubber/plastic? Any moisture -- mud, sweat, blood -- and the smooth foot begins to slip on the smooth surface. The straps will break. The soldier will fall. For any task that required strenuous physical activity, I would remove a traditional pair of (non-rubber) sandals and do it barefoot.

People who are constantly barefoot, like a Greek athlete, are not worrying about stepping on a sharp rock -- partially it's their callouses but partially it's just an understanding of foot placement. They're no more likely to injure their feet than a leopard or a wolf or any of a thousand other animals that chase and fight on soft foot pads.

There are plenty of cultures that never wear shoes, including hunters, runners, and warriors. There are plenty of thorny plants in South Africa, as a quick Google would have told you had you not been in such haste to refuse to believe things.

TKindred,

If one guy cutting or injuring his foot was enough to stop a phalanx, no phalanx would have ever made it to contact with the enemy – with 5-10,000 men on a side some silly blighter would manage to mess it up every time ;)

Not competely joking, though, any battle formation has to be able to deal with some disruption and dropping a man, or even dozens from foot injuries, wouldn't make much difference to a phalanx. I mean, they were able to advance under sustained Persian archery, are some thorn bushes or sharp rocks a credible threat to a formation of thousands?

As to the qualities of the veldt, I'll have to take your word for it that Natal is benign enough that comparing it with Greece is completely spurious – I haven't spent time in either place. I have spent a lot of time in other grasslands and to be honest, I've yet to see one that was "foot-friendly". The point is that people we have documentary proof for go without shoes and still manage to conduct their business, including when their business is warfare. I can't see the Greeks being any different in that regard.

I'm still thinking about your point about nudes in greek art being purely artistic license. You could easily be right, but if you are then it calls into question most(maybe all) of the ancient art we use as evidence for what classical period soldiers looked like. The only evidence that would be really reliable are recovered examples of equipment, and even then only if we interpret correctly how they were used.

I disagree with your point about there being no advantage to the warrior. The advantages were not in terms of the battle itself, but a man's reputation was very important, and for a relatively poor citizen who didn't own full armour (he still has to show up, regardless), there were potential social advantages for fighting "heroically" and in doing so standing out in the crowd (no puns intended). These guys were always in a "campaign game" where the pay-offs weren't just on the battlefield. He still had to survive the battle, though, and I'd agree completely that the odds favoured the guys in full kit!

All that said, I respect your right to your views, and the right of everyone else on TMP to theirs. I don't mean to offend you or any of the other contributors by presenting an alternative view. If I sounded too "in your face" that wasn't my intention.

I should add that I also studiously avoid nude warriors in my Greek and Celtic armies for the same reasons you mentioned above – they can be a needless distraction! I also have a daughter in primary school and I really don't need to answer questions about nekkid Greeks when she comes by the painting desk!

I do see some justification for depicting ancient warriors the way ancient artists depicted them …

Just sayin …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

I don't know whether ancient Greek warriors fought naked or not. What I do know is that I wouldn't, if it were up to me. That's because I was raised in a culture where public nudity isn't normal – just like every other modern commentator in the subject.

But just because I'd stupidly choose a pair of Fruit of the Loom boxer briefs over, say, a helmet, it does not follow that an actual classical era Hellene would feel the same.

Okay, now I'm getting an image of a Greek warrior wearing Fruit of the Loom boxer briefs.

That's actually pretty close to the Spartans in 300…

I've always disagreed with the 'heroic artistic convention' theory. We pick apart all sorts of vase paintings, wall paintings, mosaics, etc to get colors, armor types, formations, etc. then we see a couple of nekid guys and say, "They didn't really fight like that!"

JC Lira

You are welcome to your own opinion. Yeah, I HAVE worn real leather sandals, and lived in hot, humid climates. Ancients weren't stupid enough to wear a sandal that would slip when you needed support. It's why you see straps that go around the ankles, lower legs, etc, and why many ancients adopted boots and bootees.

The "I refuse to accept" position is absolutely valid, and it appears more likely that you are the one worried about the situation. Greek athletes, by the by, practiced primarily on fields and tracks designed for the athlete. The Olympic Games used purpose built tracks and playing fields. Bare feet wouldn't be a problem there.

I don't accept your premise, either, that the nudes are some sort of "prank". That's not what I said. Perhaps you might reread my comment.

I think we will never know for sure and that its personal taste, the fact that I am broke and cannot buy the others and like the idea of (ahem) very "light" troops my figures will stay nude.

on a side note – there was a comment on public exhibition of nude figures and appropriateness. I think that the audience that will see my figures will accept it with maturity or be educated that other cultures exist.

Celts fought naked for sure – we have lots of descriptions of that. The climate and terrain is similar – indeed the Galatians when they invaded Greece had a proportion of naked fanatics.
So clearly the argument that you can't fight naked in Greece is false, because the Celts did it.
Whether Greeks fought naked is another matter, but we have lots of art showing it, and the occasional literary reference.
Seems like a perfectly valid idea.

I don't use nude figures as well. If I recall, Osprey stated that Greeks may have fought naked really early on as a show of bravato, but eventually went out of style. There has to be a reason for greeves, helmets, and chest plates right?
I see it as "Hey this is a great idea, we all show up to the battle with the Spartans naked and they will be so disgusted…" After the battle, "Whose idea was it to go in naked? All the grabbing, cutting, yuck. I am covering up next time…."

Militia Pete,

I think you're exactly right that anyone who could afford to cover up with armour, did. I doubt there ever was a time when an entire greek phalanx fought naked. I can picture it as a Monty Python skit using the dialogue you wrote, though ;)

The problem for many warriors was that they had to supply their own equipment and there was a gap between the the household income level they needed to maintain citizenship and the income level they needed if they were going to buy complete armour as well – bronze was expensive. A substantial proportion of any city's hoplites could not afford much more than the minimum required equipment (shield, heavy spear, helmet). Those guys would make up the numbers in the rear ranks and hope for the best!

The choice for those poorer hoplites was – fight with basic gear while wearing a tunic, or fight with basic gear while nude. Either way that's something along the lines of "large shield in phalanx, save on 5+ if attacked from the front, save on 6 if attacked from flank or rear". They're soft targets compared to the rich guys in the front rank any way you look at it, so some could reasonably choose to fight naked as a matter of individual preference.

That said, nude or in tunic, every one of those poorer hoplites was hoping that the fight went their city's way and they could plunder some better armour after the battle!

I expect you already know that fighting without cuirass and even greaves was the direction the "later" hoplite equipment drifted during the Peloppenesian War. They baically figured out that a 5 foot six warrior in a helmet behind a 3 foot diameter shield and with no other armour was adequate to serve in a phalanx, and was a net advantage if loosening the property requirements for citizenship let you put a couple thousand more fighters in your line. That had to sting for the Spartan elites, to be forced to accept helots in the main battle-line!

A close friend was badly wounded in 1969 in Vietnam after 9 months in country as a Marine rifleman. Sent home to Great Lakes Naval Hospital in Chicago I drove up every weekend for three months to do my pathetic best for a 19 year old with the calf of his right leg gone. He went from the bush to the US in three days and his entire body was a record of how tough he had to become to survive. To stay On Topic the soles of his feet were like hard leather a quarter inch thick. That was what nine months busting brush in jungle boots did. Think how tough the feet of Greek and Roman soldiers were even wearing sandals or boots. I recall when Shaka was building his army he forbade the wearing of sandals because they slowed the men down. He drilled them mercilessly barefoot, the tale being told even on ground littered with sharp stones and thorns. Those showing weakness were killed to "encourage the rest". Thus he built a force that could run for hours and was capable of 60 miles in a day. Tough men, whether in ancient times or modern, can endure conditions the average person find difficult to contemplate.

@ TJKindred

There are a number of scholars who state that, for many Greeks of the less wealthy sort, and of either plumbing type, clothing was viewed as optional during the warmer months. I am skeptical that it was somehow mandatory on the battlefield. "Heroic" nudity may or may not have been an artistic convention, but that is far from proving that the practice was unknown.

The "I refuse to accept" position is a good way to convince people you have an agenda other than history, even if you do not. OTOH, if I were showing minis to high school kids (major kudos for that, BTW) I would likely leave any nekkid figures at home as well, since they'd only distract the little beggars from the history.

Gentlemen, IMHO I think some warriors fought naked was the fact of a little help such as drugs or spirits. Mike Adams

Is there anything about fighting naked that means you can't wear shoes or sandals -a lot of points here seem to be based on that.