"Iphicrates’ Reforms" Topic

"Iphicrates was born towards the end of the fifth century into a poor and rather obscure Athenian family. Despite his lowly background he rose to a position of command in Athens, fighting in a number of campaigns including the Corinthian War and the Social War, he also spent time in Persian service after the Peace of Antalcidas. Diodorus places his peltast reforms after 374, following his Persian sojourn, using his experiences prior to that date to develop this new type of soldier.93 The exact dating of the reforms is not relevant here, but their nature certainly is, as it was this type of soldier that constituted the bulk of Alexander's mercenary forces. I have also tried to argue earlier that Alexander's heavy infantry were essentially a version of Iphicratean peltasts, being equipped as they were with a small shield and very little body armour.

The primary sources of information that we have for the peltast reforms of Iphicrates are Diodorus and Nepos, both of whose accounts are very similar. According to them the most significant changes were as follows:

Iphicrates replaced the large (shield) of the Greeks by the light pelte, which had the advantage that it protected the body while allowing the wearer more freedom of movement; the soldiers who had formerly carried the [large hoplite shield] and who were called hoplites, were henceforth called peltasts after the name of their new shields; their new spears were half as long again or even twice as long as the old ones, the new swords were also double in length, In addition Iphicrates introduced light and easily untied footwear, and the bronze harness was replaced by a linen covering, which although it was lighter, still protected the body…"

Main page

link

Armand

I must admit that I have always had my doubts about the reforms of Iphicrates. What worries me is that whilst they are mentioned by historians writing three or four hundred years later (Diodorus Siculus and Cornelius Nepos) whilst historians like Xenophon (who was both a soldier and a contemporary) write about him but never mention his reforms.
I do wonder whether, like the 'reforms of Marius' a lot of these things were more evolutionary and were tagged to a famous general in retrospect.

Thanks.

Armand

Iphicrates' troops were mercenaries so it is fitting that they may have been equipped for various missions. His troops were fast marching and the combination of formed hoplites operating closely in support of skirmishers could be lethal.
As Jim says above- it is hard to pick out of the surviving record many details of how and where the 'reformed hoplite' were used. Some conclude this style suited marines and allowed his ship borne crews to be better able to fight on deck, and also have the maneuverability to fight formed or loose. Often folks point to the success of the relief of the Spartan siege of Corcyra as some testimony to the flexibility of his special hoplites.

Since later Macedonian hypaspists used the same gear at times and it seems they are inheritors of the Iphicrates style of troops who could stand in a fight, be armored, or unarmored and use javelins.

Ultimately I feel the reformed hoplite was special because he wasn't just going to fight in the phalanx, he was also equipped well for naval service and sieges. He was experienced and well led. Flexible instead of pigeon holing into one role.

Iphicrates had a chequered career, but he didn't die in battle, or jail, so he must have done something right.

It's the problem we inevitably have with troop categories. Alexander sent his pikemen off into the hills armed with javelins but we don't (generally!) have a special category of pike who also fight as light infantry. What most rule sets / lists do is simply allow the player to swap out one for the other. Maybe that should be the case with Iphicrates' troops.

Cheers,
John

Thanks also…

Armand

J Jartist; makes some very good points, I've troubled over these troops for years.

(smile)

Armand