336 HISTORY OF GREECE. Compare Rchdantz, Vitas Iphicratis, Chabriae, et Timothei, c. 2, 7 (Berlin, 1845) a very useful and instructive publication. In describing the improvements made by Ipbikrates in the armature of his peltasts, I have not exactly copied either Nepos or Diodorus, -who both appear to me confused in their statements. You would imagine, in reading their account (and so it has been stated by Weber, Prolegg. ad Demosth. cont. Aristokr. p. xxxv , that there were no peltasts in Greece prior to Iphi- krates ; that he was the first to transform heavy-armed hoplites into light- armed peltasts, and to introduce from Thrace the light shield or pelta, not only smaller in size than the round uanlf carried by the hoplite, but also without the l-rvf (or surrounding metallic rim of the iaflif.) seemingly con- nected by outside bars or spokes of metal with the exterior central knob or projection (umbo) which the hoplite pushed before him in close combat The pelta, smaller and lighter than the aamf, was seemingly square or ob- long and not round ; though it had no CTVC, it often had thin plates of brass, as we may see by Xenophon, Anab. v, 2, 29, so that the explanation of it given in the Scholia ad Platon. Legg. vii, p. 813 must be taken with re- serve. But Grecian peltasts existed before the time of Iphikrates (Xen. Hellen. i, 2, 1 and elsewhere) ; he did not first introduce them ; he found them al- ready there, and improved their armature. Both Diodorus and Nepos affirm that he lengthened the spears of the peltasts to a measure half as long again as those of the hoplites (or twice as long, if we believe Ncpos), and the swords in proportion "rtv^rjae fiev rd dopara f//4io/,i(f> fieysdei hastae modum duplicavit." Now this I apprehend to be not exact ; nor is it true (as Nepos asserts) that the Grecian hoplites carried "short spears" " brevibus hastis." The spear of the Grecian hoplite was long (though not so long as that of the heavy and compact Macedonian phalanx afterwards became), and it appears to me incredible that Iphikrates should have given to his light and active peltast a spear twice as long, or half as long again, as that of the hoplite. Both Diodorus and Nepos have mistaken by making their comparison with the arms of the hoplite, to which the changes of Iphi- krates had no reference. The peltast both before and after Iphikrates did not carry a spear, but a javelin, which he employed as a missile, to hurl, not to thrust; he was essentially an uKovricrTrjc or javelin-shooter (See Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 5, 14 ; vi, 1, 9). Of course the javelin might, in case of need, serve to thrust, but this was not its appropriate employment ; e converse, the pear might be hurled (under advantageous circumstances, from the higher ground against an enemy below Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 15 ; v, 4, 52), but its proper employment was, to be held and thrust forward. What Iphikrates really did, was, to lengthen both the two offensive weapons which the peltast carried, before his time, the javelin, and the sword. He made the javelin a longer and heavier weapon, requiring a more practised hand to throw but also con-.petent to inflict more serious wounds, and capable of being used wi:h more deadly effect if the peltasts saw an ct~ortunity of coming to close fight or advantageous terms. Po
