Bret Devereaux

Well this just shattered my preconceived notions of Classical Greece prior to the Peloponnesian War

Here's one to blow your noodle: the most radical view says the phalanx is an innovation of the Peloponnesian War. Personally I think the early signs are there in the Persian Wars narrative in Hdt., but the radical view is certainly sustainable in a positivist sense.

What do you do with the Chigi Vase? I suppose for a very narrow definition of the phalanx you might argue they still appear to have javelins? But that seems like pointless hair-splitting.

To the original point, I don't know that it is fair to say 'no' evidence. We have archaeological examples of the kit later associated with it. We have depictions, like the Chigi vase, which are much like it. Other cultures (Romans, Etruscans) seem to understand themselves...

...as having already *imported* the idea from the Greeks. We have works like Tyrtaeus which, read in light of what we know from later authors, seem to be discussing it. It's not 'we have no evidence.' It's 'we have no indisputable evidence, and significant room for doubt.'

At best Tyrtaios shows the same intermediate form of heavy infantry combat also evident in Hdt.'s account of the Persian Wars. It's easy to overemphasise either the density of his lines or the presence of light-armed; reality seems to have accomodated both (i.e. not a phalanx.)

This, I think, is actually the rub - this is frequently a debate over definition masquerading as a debate over facts. Is it a phalanx if you have a front line overlapping aspides, but some light armed guys in the back? How many light armed guys till it stops being a phalanx?

I agree definitions are important, but I've never seen anyone willing to argue that a heterogenous formation (light armed + hoplites) can count as a phalanx. Homogeneity & rank-and-file order are the litmus test.