The Phalanx and the duties of citizenship
‘Trust, then, in the men around you was important; if one man broke ranks or ran, the battle was effectively over if the formation could not be reformed.’
The Greek city states were the world's first democracies and from them I think a lot can be learned about the way nation states function. One of the most important concepts to the nation state is citizenship, and to the Greeks citizenship was a bond between the individual free man and the city state he resided in. He was guaranteed the rule of law and freedom in exchange for participation in both public life and the Greek citizen armies that defended them. In other words, duty equal to the freedom guaranteed to him. Citizenship then was deeply important because of how precarious it was, as at any time a poor free man could accrue debts that may cause him to resort to selling himself into slavery. Similarly, war, if lost, would almost always mean slavery and destruction.
Thus the citizens of Greek city states were deeply patriotic, seeing the world outside the narrow confines of their polis as brutal and a place of perpetual captivity. And so the Greeks often went to war, and these wars were fought by citizen soldiers, potters, fishermen and speech writers. I have no doubt that this collective way of waging war created a unity in these societies among the citizen class unparalleled by any other civilisation, in stark contrast to the modern divisions of our society. Of course, the politics of Greek city states were often cut throat, but they knew that they could not afford to let disputes reach a point where they could not be set aside, as they may have found themselves fighting with their enemies at any time.
The more I learn about the Greek method of fighting the more stunned I am that they managed to convince anyone at all to commit themselves to it.
The Greeks fought as hoplites in a phalanx formation armed primarily with a hoplon, or aspis, shield, spear and a sword as a secondary weapon. The Hoplon was the most important of this panoply, and where the word ‘hoplite’ comes from. The Hoplon was a massive shield strapped to the arm made of wood or leather and faced with bronze. At first glance it looks to be deeply impractical, being wider than the user and weighing about 16 pounds. The fact that it was strapped to the arm meant that it could not be easily taken off, and because of the shield's weight it had to be kept close to the body and running with it was slow and difficult. Because you could not hold it in front of you to ward blows, punch with it or use it to defend your legs as to do so would cause you to expose your torso and throat. It is not a shield that can be used for single combat, and its weight means you would find it difficult to flee from the enemy.
However, when used in formation, it goes from being a useless encumbrance to the battlefield equivalent of a mountain. When attacking a phalanx you would be faced by a wall of shields and the threat of spear points from three directions. The phalanx then was a mountain made out of pebbles; if one fell then the entire mountain would come crashing down and the hoplites would find themselves being assailed from all sides, unable to run or effectively fight back. Trust, then, in the men around you was important; if one man broke ranks or ran, the battle was effectively over if the formation could not be reformed.
The psychology of this formation is interesting; it forces you to stay put and maintain the phalanx with the rest of your comrades. The trust that this creates between the individual citizens is something we sorely lack in the modern day, and as civilisation is built on trust it is a deeply concerning phenomenon. I have seen it said that conscription can be very good for the social fabric of a society, and nations that do practice this like Norway and Finland do seem to be well put together. Similarly, it may form our conception of ‘citizenship’ into a much more selfless and accurate representation of what it truly means to be a member of a society.
