Henry Drisler (New York, 1894); Zoroaster the Prophet, chapter vii. (New York, 1899); Spiegel, Eränische Altertumskunde, Vol. III., 638 ff. (Leipzig, 1878); Kelsey, Xenophon's Anabasis, Introduction (Boston, 1895); G. Rawlinson, Story of Parthia, p. 397 ff. (New York, 1893).
Greece. In the Homeric poems the mass of the infantry is of little account—at least to the poet. The fighting is chiefly carried on by the individual heroes, armed with lance and sword, and defended by helmet and shield and sometimes corselet. These heroes go to and from the battlefield in chariots, but in general fight on foot. When the historic period opens, we find that the war chariots have disappeared, and even cavalry, though the arm of the nobles, is not of decisive value. The army is composed of the hoplites, or heavy infantry, armed with helmet, breastplate, greaves, and shield, and carrying a short sword and long spear. These men fought in close formation, usually eight deep, supported at times by cavalry on the wings, and with light troops, armed with javelins, bows, or slings, to skirmish in front and cover the rear. Lacedæmonian.—Through the early days of Greek history the Spartan hoplites were regarded as model troops. Their success seems to have been due in part to their rigorous gymnastic training; but still more to a severity of drill such as the other Grecian states seldom required. From the age of twenty to sixty every Spartan could be called upon to serve, though the older men were not called out except in emergencies. This discipline enabled them to change front in the presence of the enemy, and held them steady in defeat or victory. Athenian.—The Athenian army was a militia. Every man was supposed to receive training and to serve when called upon—the richer as hoplites, the poorer as light-armed troops, while the cavalry was made up from young men of the wealthy families. As the Athenians never spent so much time in drill as the Spartans, they do not seem to have reached their combination of firmness and mobility, though Athenian bravery and skill were shown in many hard battles.
The general formation of the Greek armies remained but little changed for over a century. Marathon, Platæa, and Mycale were fought by the phalanx of hoplites against light-armed Orientals, and the same tactics and the same results are seen in B.C. 401, at the battle of Cunaxa, when the 10,000 Greeks overthrew the Persians opposed to them. Thebans.—These had long enjoyed high repute as hoplites; but their contribution to the Greek art of war was rather in the development of a formation in deep column (fifty deep at Leuctra, B.C. 371). This heavy mass was hurled against one wing of the enemy, while the rest of the line, in ordinary formation, was held back to prevent any flank movement upon the attacking column. This innovation contributed largely to the success of Epaminondas and the establishment of Theban supremacy in Greece. Macedonian.—Upon these tactics of the Thebans, Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great developed their armies. The central principle was personal duty to the King on the part of noble and peasant. “Companions” and “Foot-Companions” were the names of the heavy cavalry and infantry. The former wore metal cuirasses and carried lances; the latter had a small shield and a pike about eighteen feet in length for the rear ranks. They were drawn up in very close order. In general, Alexander seems to have preferred the old depth of eight men; but under his successors the phalanx was deepened to sixteen men, and became an unwieldy mass, formidable on level ground, but easily broken if a rough surface opened up the close ranks. This was shown again and again in the battles between the Romans and Greeks. An important change in the art of war was the introduction by Philip and Alexander of a charge by heavy cavalry as the decisive feature of the attack, instead of the column of infantry used by Epaminondas. The Macedonians also developed the use of military engines hurling huge stones and arrows, both for siege purposes and also to some extent like modern artillery in actual battle.
Rome. While to the Greek belongs the credit of developing warfare into a science, it was left to the Roman legionary, with his perfect discipline and still more perfect organization, to make it effective. The leading characteristic of the Roman soldier was discipline rather than individual prowess. Great national characters like Camillus, Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, and Fabius Maximus were not so much heroes or strategists as commanders and disciplinarians. The fact that the Roman soldier was never the military equal of the Greek hoplite at his best, and that he had no great advantage, man to man, in a pitched battle even with savages, was demonstrated over and over again during his career of world conquest.
In the earliest period of Roman military history, all able-bodied citizens, under the King as commander-in-chief, were compelled to serve in the army in time of war. It was under Servius Tullius, however (according to Roman legends, the sixth King of Rome, B.C. 578-534), that the first real organization took place. On the basis of a property qualification, citizens were divided into classes or grades (centuriæ); and each class subdivided into seniores, or elderly men, assigned only to light garrison duty, and juniores, or effective warriors; with the addition of two centuriæ of fairi (pioneers), two of cornicines (military musicians), and one of proletarii. The armies were made up by tribal levies, made in a general public assembly, usually on the Campus Martius, and each tribe was called upon to furnish an equal number of men. Out of a total of 25,000 men, there would be 8000 seniores and 17,000 juniores. The soldiers thus chosen were formed into four legions and a cavalry corps of about 1800 horsemen. The legion (q.v.) on service consisted normally of about 3000 men, not including the velites, or lightly armed skirmishers, and a squadron of cavalry. In regular formation the hastati (heavily armed infantry), about 1200 strong, and arranged in 10 files, constituted the advance guard; following, was a similar body of principes, and a reserve or rear-guard of triarii, usually arranged in 5 files.
The equipment of all three divisions was practically identical, and consisted of a short cutting and thrusting sword worn on the right thigh; two javelins, one light and one heavy; metal breastplate, large shield, and brazen
